Well, It also has a pro-war bias, since a lot of movies were funded thanks to the Pentagon. Top Gun and Red Dawn are some famous examples.
Neither of these movies were funded by the Pentagon.
In fact, Top Gun was pretty much the opposite. They went to and paid the government/military for their knowledge and resources.
Didn't they get access to, I don't know, jets and carriers and such for filming? I'd say they probably would have to pay a lot more than they did to "rent" that. I guess funding might not be the best word, but a lot of movies use material that's borrowed from armed forces, and it also requires that military authorities read the script and for the filmmakers to change parts to make it, shall we say, more palatable.
Funding or aid or not, though, these movies had modifications done after military authorities read them specifically to make the navy/army/war/what have you appear in as positive a light as possible. Funding or not, there's a very real propagandist aspect to them.
Edit: Militarism is an "ism" in entertainment, right? No one can claim i'm off-topic now, right?
Didn't they get access to, I don't know, jets and carriers and such for filming? I'd say they probably would have to pay a lot more than they did to "rent" that. I guess funding might not be the best word, but a lot of movies use material that's borrowed from armed forces
Funding isn't the best word because it's the opposite of what's occurring. The studio is paying the government for the opportunity to use the government's equipment and people. There's no gray area here.
and it also requires that military authorities read the script and for the filmmakers to change parts to make it, shall we say, more palatable.
Not really. Unless it's specified in a contract to use said equipment, but that would vary from film to film anyway. Though if such a requirement were made for the use of genuine military equipment, there's the very simple option of not using said equipment.
And with your two specific examples, nothing of the sort was required. The studio, again, went to the military requesting their opinion on the script for Top Gun. They wanted their input to make a better script. While with Red Dawn nothing of the sort ever occurred.
Funding or aid or not, though, these movies had modifications done after military authorities read them specifically to make the navy/army/war/what have you appear in as positive a light as possible. Funding or not, there's a very real propagandist aspect to them.
Except, as explained above, there's absolutely no truth to that statement. The closest is with Top Gun where the military was solicited for input. No requirements were made by the military.
Quid on
0
Options
21stCenturyCall me Pixel, or Pix for short![They/Them]Registered Userregular
Of course, the military had been working with Hollywood filmmakers since 1927, when it helped produce Wings, the winner of the very first Academy Award for Best Picture. Pentagon involvement varied through the first two-thirds of the twentieth century, but it always had kids in its sights. In the 1950s, for example, the military worked with Lassie on shows that highlighted new military technology and produced "Mouse Reels" for The Mickey Mouse Club, one of which showed kids touring the first nuclear submarine. As investigative journalist David Robb discovered, a Pentagon memo noted at the time that child-focused media "is an excellent opportunity to introduce a whole new generation to the nuclear Navy."
The 1970s saw far fewer Pentagon-backed war films for a public that was fatigued from Vietnam and its aftermath on the evening news. But according to The Hollywood Reporter, as Reaganite militarism began ascending, the 1980s saw "a steady growth in the demand for access to military facilities and in the number of films, TV shows and home videos made about the military."
For that access, the military began exacting a price. The Pentagon's focus on juveniles created the heavy hand it was beginning to use to shape popular culture in the 1980s. Increasingly, for filmmakers to gain access to even the most basic military scenery, Pentagon gatekeepers began requiring major plot and dialogue changes so as to guarantee that the military was favorably portrayed. In a Variety story from 1994, the Pentagon's official Hollywood liaison, Phil Strub, put it bluntly: "The main criteria we use [for approval] is ... how could the proposed production benefit the military ... could it help in recruiting [and] is it in sync with present policy?"
According to Strub, Pentagon-Hollywood collusion hit "a milestone" with 1986's Top Gun, a triumphalist teen recruitment ad about the navy's "best of the best," who, of course, never even think to ask the most basic of the basic questions. The movie's glaringly incurious characters and story were no accident. The script was shaped by Pentagon brass in exchange for full access to all sorts of hardware -- the access itself a priceless taxpayer subsidy. According to Maclean's, Paramount Pictures paid just "$1.1 million for the use of warplanes and an aircraft carrier," far less than it would have cost the studio had it been compelled to finance the eye candy itself.
As if that carrot-stick dynamic weren't coercive enough to aspiring filmmakers, the Pentagon in the 1980s expanded the definition of "cooperation" to include collaboration on screenplays as scripts were being initially drafted. "It saves [writers] time from writing stupid stuff," said one official in explaining the new process.
Such a cavalier attitude coupled with the box-office success of the Pentagon-approved Top Gun convinced studios in the 1980s that agreeing to military demands and, hence, making ever more militaristic films was a guaranteed formula for success. Consequently, between the release of Top Gun and the beginning of the Gulf War, the Pentagon reported that the number of pictures made with its official assistance (and approval) quadrupled, and a large portion of these action-adventure productions (quickly synergized into video games, action figures, etc.) were for teenagers.
[...]
hen there are the standards that were set for the long haul. Today, the Pentagon offers Hollywood just as much enticement for militarism, and just as much punishment against antimilitarism, as ever. On top of the eighties militarism that is now endlessly recycled in the cable rerun-o-sphere, it's a safe bet that whichever Jerry Bruckheimer or Michael Bay blockbuster is being fawned over by teen audiences is at least partially underwritten by the Pentagon, and as a condition of that support, these blockbusters typically agree to deliberately reiterate the morality of the military and war.
By contrast, as the director of The Hunt for Red October recounted, this new reality prompted studios in the eighties to start telling screenwriters and directors to "get the cooperation of the [military], or forget about making the picture." What greater control could the Pentagon ever have hoped for?
(Emphasis mine)
Either way, officially backed or not, Red Dawn, Top Gun, hell, even Battle for LA, those are high-budget blockbuster movies that certainly have an element of pro-war propaganda. They certainly are aimed at teenagers and they certainly do have an effect on them. To claim there is no pro-war undercurrent in Hollywood today is plain ignorant, and that undercurrent runs deep.
A citeless blog is not proof. All I'm seeing is that Hollywood and the military have worked together closely on some films. This is not the Pentagon funding films. Neither officially or unofficially. Your claim is bogus.
Edit: To say nothing of the fact that anti war movies come out of Hollywood as well.
Why are we talking about the Pentagon funding propaganda movies again?
Anyways, I find it hilarious how people in the US refer to moderate-center politics as "leftist", as disruptor2x did.
Back to topic:
I guess all current international cultural currents are misogynistic in some way or another. The relevant aspects are 1) How much (in relation to others) and 2) whether things are changing or not.
And back to back to topic: Robotech might bother us today, but it was indeed a step forward back then. Even if Lisa seems incompetent, the simple fact that she was second-in-command is a big deal.
We are gonna get bothered by almost any work of media that was not specifically made to be PC. That's probably a sad situation, but many times they are portraying how things seem to be in a particular place and time.
Plus, the overwhelming majority--like, practically the whole of it--of the American left is actually still center or even center-of-right in the tradition of the 20th century left.
You know those crazy Maoist professors you only see on university campuses occasionally, or in Trotskyite cells? They basically mainstream left in South America, East Asia, parts of Europe. Which is not to say there are lots of leftists in, say, Japan or Taiwan, there aren't (they all got killed in Taiwan, dunno about Japan), but those there are are very much left if they even come close to calling themselves "leftists".
Oh, god, we have those here in Brazil a lot. Fucking idiots. I'm more of a moderate leftist, but those guys. Fucking idiots. They're still living in the "Ditadura" days, back in the 60's and 70's (which was a right wing murderous dictatorship supported by the US I have to add).
But hey, Synthesis, what do you mean with the whole "man-hating Taiwanese army" thing? How are things organized there? I don't get why should your uncle hate women.
A citeless blog is not proof. All I'm seeing is that Hollywood and the military have worked together closely on some films. This is not the Pentagon funding films. Neither officially or unofficially. Your claim is bogus.
Edit: To say nothing of the fact that anti war movies come out of Hollywood as well.
Yes, because the vast majority of films from Hollywood are anti-war and not pro war, right?
i'll admit it, i can't find sources very well, I know there's books written about that but I'd need to buy them to get the sources, I guess. I found there's "operation Hollywood: ow the Pentagon shapes and censors the movies" that's been used as a source in several articles, it's written by a Pentagon insider. You probably wouldn't accept it as a source anyway.
Why are we talking about the Pentagon funding propaganda movies again?
"'ism/'obia and Entertainment: How much is too much"... Militarism in Entertainment is an interesting enough topic, that falls within that subject, no?
Excellent. I suggest next time you find a source before making bold claims like that.
Actually, is a book a good enough source? What is an acceptable source? How do i find an acceptable source? Do you really think it's that bold to claim that there's a distinct undercurrent of pro-war messages in Hollywood and that the Pentagon works with filmmakers?
Is it a really big deal if the armed forces were doing that? Sounds pretty par for the course if you want your giant military to stay giant. And its not like they're taking an iron fist to any movie that features a US soldier; its really only a certain type of big blockbuster they seem to get heavily involved in.
And I've also read plenty of stuff indicating that the movie-set consultants the US armed forces employ can have quite the influence on portrayals. 'Do it our way or you don't get permission to feature this fancy hardware that's integral to the plot", sort of thing.
Getting the military funding from the government is a business contract like any other, of course if they dont like something about your movie and you ask for funding, theill say "well, we can do it if you do x". the general rule is you show the US military in a moral right standing, and usually kicking ass unless its a sad story that would promote patriotism/heroics of soldiers.
There really isn't anything wrong about this either. the government doesn't force anyone to shed anything in a certain light. If you want to play a game with their ball, its just going to be their rules is all. It's actually pretty well known that if you want support from the government in your film theres a large list of rules to follow. One of the ones I found out recently was that you have to get a certain amount of items wrong on an officers uniform.
Does this force huge changes in some movies? I like to point towards the two transformers movies to answer that question. All of a sudden the movies are about the american army kicking alien robot asses. I can't tell if this is just the director/whomever being "american military fuck yeah", or the government asking for the changes in exchange for funding/help(cant make us look worthless in a fight), but it sounds a bit like both.
Well, I don't blame the military. If you want to make a movie that shows the military in a bad light, don't expect them to help. Of course, movies that show the military in a bad light are necessary and important, but shouldn't be made under military supervision.
Well, I don't blame the military. If you want to make a movie that shows the military in a bad light, don't expect them to help. Of course, movies that show the military in a bad light are necessary and important, but shouldn't be made under military supervision.
I larger issue is that the military will present pr as "fact-checking" when studios reach out to them, so that it's impossible to find out how a commander would really act because the best positioned consultants would call any deviation from omniscient godking inaccurate.
Sorry I must of edited the sentence out, but that should of included "but government isnt going to force its way into your private movie and change things up". Dr. Strangelove is a great example of this on many different levels.
I larger issue is that the military will present pr as "fact-checking" when studios reach out to them, so that it's impossible to find out how a commander would really act because the best positioned consultants would call any deviation from omniscient godking inaccurate.
I don't think I am understanding this right. Are you saying that the government will say something contrary to what a consultant with experience would say? I think that goes without saying due to protocol vs realistic reaction.
DiannaoChong on
0
Options
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
Well, I don't blame the military. If you want to make a movie that shows the military in a bad light, don't expect them to help. Of course, movies that show the military in a bad light are necessary and important, but shouldn't be made under military supervision.
There really isn't anything wrong about this either. the government doesn't force anyone to shed anything in a certain light. If you want to play a game with their ball, its just going to be their rules is all.
Consider the following law: anyone who wants to buy advertising on public subway cars must make sure that their advertisements do not promote or positively portray drug use. Or, how about: anyone who wants to start a public school club must check with the school to ensure that their club's philosophy and activities are consistent with those of the school. Both of these examples involve the government telling you what you can do if you want to play with their resources. You can, of course, always continue to shout your message off a cardboard box on a street corner--the requirements on using public advertising would not impede you from disseminating your message in other media. Similarly, you can, of course, always continue to promote your ideology elsewhere even when you're not allowed to use a school club to do so. It seems like, according to both your reasoning, these should be totally fine.
But, in fact, both of these constitute viewpoint discrimination and are certainly illegal. In fact, the government cannot pick and choose who to allow to use subway advertising on the basis of which message they like any more than they can pick and choose who is allowed to speak at a public park based on who they like. Nor can they pick and choose who can form a school club on the basis of which clubs they like: if your public school allows the "rah rah home team" football club, then they are legally obligated to also allow a gay-straight alliance. In fact, for this reason, some schools have banned all student clubs as their only legal means of preventing a gay-straight alliance from forming. The government is barred from picking and choosing on the basis of viewpoint content. It's a good thing, too, because if they were allowed to, it would massively curtail the arena in which free speech remains a viable right. If the government could arbitrarily deny you access to their resources under the aegis of disliking your political thought, there would be very little left over for you to work with.
So no, if the military does actually pick and choose movies to give special perks to, under the rationalization that some of said movies promote patriotism and others don't, then that sounds to me like impermissible viewpoint discrimination. There might be some exception under the notion of recruitment as a legitimate state interest, however, it strikes me as exactly the sort of government meddling in the social and political sphere which our constitutional rights are tailored to prevent.
I think theres something off on the subway arguement, theres a difference between a public subway car and a military owned tank you want to borrow for your movie. Also, do they still show joe camel playing pool on advertisements for cig's on the subway? because preventing that would be illegal right? And in some cases this is already the truth, you can't show someone smoking oregano/tobacco/spice/whatever legal out of a bong with the words "got it from joe's glass shop!"(It's a misdemeanor in most states).
double edit: now that I think about it, if you want to shut down a subway and use it for your movie, you are still going to have to sign a contract with the city to use the car, and its still going to be their rules. Cities bid and give tax credits all the time to get films made in their cities as well.
Or, how about: anyone who wants to start a public school club must check with the school to ensure that their club's philosophy and activities are consistent with those of the school. Both of these examples involve the government telling you what you can do if you want to play with their resources.
This is actually already true, schools in America are basically a "no freedoms" zone.
I get the argument you are trying to make. But the government cant tell you what you can and cant do in your movie with the image/footage of a tank or the tank you bought somewhere else. But if you want to borrow their tank? its the same as dealing with any other company, you sign an agreement and follow their rules for the opportunity if you want to borrow their tank.
I think the real issue here is that the military IS using public funding, our tax money to do these things, and make these decisions. Do we want our money funding hollywood movies? To me its a decent compromise: they have to advertise(want more videos of rock climbing and seals exiting water to godsmack?), and we can get some pretty awesome content out of it.
edit: Is this too off topic? I apologize if so and we can take it somewhere else or drop it.
K-12 public schools in the United States are "no freedoms" zones. So are private schools--the difference being the local administration running the school. I think this is common knowledge--any sort of freedom of expression a student gets is purely at the administration's leisure.
High education schools (including universities) are, I suppose, "less freedom" zones. There's a degree of respect for attending student's rights, but it's still limited. For example, at my university, you're allowed to protest certain political issues, but you circulate information about trying to organize student laborers or graduate teaching assistants? Enjoy being expelled and physically removed by campus police.
Synthesis on
0
Options
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
I think theres something off on the subway arguement, theres a difference between a public subway car and a military owned tank you want to borrow for your movie. Also, do they still show joe camel playing pool on advertisements for cig's on the subway? because preventing that would be illegal right? And in some cases this is already the truth, you can't show someone smoking oregano/tobacco/spice/whatever legal out of a bong with the words "got it from joe's glass shop!"(It's a misdemeanor in most states).
I think that the relevant distinction here is between commercial and political speech? One cannot advertise illegal services, okay, and there are also restrictions on how one can advertise e.g. cigarettes for sale (not in a manner that targets youngsters, not without a health disclaimer, and etc). However, one can certainly put up an ad with a marijuana leaf saying "legalize it!" This was, in fact, an actual case. Said ad has an overtly political message, and it cannot be denied on the basis of that political content.
Works of art with political content are usually a highly protected class of speech. So, for instance, a movie with anti-military or subversive overtones would qualify for the highest forms of protection, which would, in turn, separate it from bong advertisements designed to sell more units by indicating their potential for illegal use.
Or, how about: anyone who wants to start a public school club must check with the school to ensure that their club's philosophy and activities are consistent with those of the school. Both of these examples involve the government telling you what you can do if you want to play with their resources.
This is actually already true, schools in America are basically a "no freedoms" zone.
"Students in your school are interested in forming a student organization, often called a gay/straight alliance, to focus on combating anti-gay harassment and discrimination and on educating the school community about these issues. Federal law requires that you treat such organizations the same as any other non-curricular club at your schools. Where schools have refused to allow gay/straight alliances to form or otherwise denied these groups equal treatment, courts have held them to be in violation of the law."
Although I have to admit:
This particular point is apparently due to a specific federal equal access law, rather than to the constitutional restrictions on viewpoint discrimination.
Edit: I figured I should probably stop talking out my ass and actually ask my friend who's in law school. She reports:
me: would it be legal for the military to give free access to tanks, planes, carriers and etc.
to moviemakers of pro-war movies
but not to moviemakers of anti-war movies?
her: a very tentative no
it's a really tricky area of the law
especially because the first amendment law is weird around the military
yeah
but like, that's actually a really impressively spot-on controversial area
Actually with Michael Bay I think the Pentagon gave him a list of things they wanted to show the military in a positive light to use their footage (like half of transformers 2 is military hardware footage provided by them), but of his own accord Bay exceeded what the military itself would consider propoganda because of his raging military hard on.
override367 on
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
edited April 2011
I think it is important that we not forget how fucking terrible Michael Bay is.
I think theres something off on the subway arguement, theres a difference between a public subway car and a military owned tank you want to borrow for your movie. Also, do they still show joe camel playing pool on advertisements for cig's on the subway? because preventing that would be illegal right? And in some cases this is already the truth, you can't show someone smoking oregano/tobacco/spice/whatever legal out of a bong with the words "got it from joe's glass shop!"(It's a misdemeanor in most states).
double edit: now that I think about it, if you want to shut down a subway and use it for your movie, you are still going to have to sign a contract with the city to use the car, and its still going to be their rules. Cities bid and give tax credits all the time to get films made in their cities as well.
Or, how about: anyone who wants to start a public school club must check with the school to ensure that their club's philosophy and activities are consistent with those of the school. Both of these examples involve the government telling you what you can do if you want to play with their resources.
This is actually already true, schools in America are basically a "no freedoms" zone.
I get the argument you are trying to make. But the government cant tell you what you can and cant do in your movie with the image/footage of a tank or the tank you bought somewhere else. But if you want to borrow their tank? its the same as dealing with any other company, you sign an agreement and follow their rules for the opportunity if you want to borrow their tank.
I think the real issue here is that the military IS using public funding, our tax money to do these things, and make these decisions. Do we want our money funding hollywood movies? To me its a decent compromise: they have to advertise(want more videos of rock climbing and seals exiting water to godsmack?), and we can get some pretty awesome content out of it.
edit: Is this too off topic? I apologize if so and we can take it somewhere else or drop it.
Of course, something being legal and advantageous doesn't make it morally right.
I really don't see how its possibly illegal for the military to decide not to spend its money on a project it doesn't like and instead spend its money on something it does like. Law student or not. It feels the same to me as you going to an investor and asking for money for your project, and when they say no you say that's illegal to refuse. Theres a bit of difference between a citizens money and how budgeted money gets used.
Also that law for school groups means if they say yes to conservative after school club, they cant say no to a liberal one(terrible example). its literally for discrimination. It doesnt stop them from saying no for whatever reason they feel like otherwise(if theres a math club and I want to make a "fart" club, they can say no). Theres church and state laws in place too, but that doesnt stop the boy scouts from having meetings there all the time.
K-12 public schools in the United States are "no freedoms" zones. So are private schools--the difference being the local administration running the school. I think this is common knowledge--any sort of freedom of expression a student gets is purely at the administration's leisure.
High education schools (including universities) are, I suppose, "less freedom" zones. There's a degree of respect for attending student's rights, but it's still limited. For example, at my university, you're allowed to protest certain political issues, but you circulate information about trying to organize student laborers or graduate teaching assistants? Enjoy being expelled and physically removed by campus police.
Sorry, no. Public schools in the US are not 'no freedom' zones - at least not officially. The Supreme Court has swung back toward the more restrictive view, and of course any case mentioning drugs makes SCOTUS come up with some incredibly inane opinions. But they are not 'no freedom' zones.
mythago on
Three lines of plaintext:
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
I really don't see how its possibly illegal for the military to decide not to spend its money on a project it doesn't like and instead spend its money on something it does like.
If those projects are politically motivated then it's really no different from, say, the military buying ads to support presidential candidates they like. Which should be pretty obviously wrong.
HamHamJ on
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
0
Options
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
I really don't see how its possibly illegal for the military to decide not to spend its money on a project it doesn't like and instead spend its money on something it does like. Law student or not. It feels the same to me as you going to an investor and asking for money for your project, and when they say no you say that's illegal to refuse. Theres a bit of difference between a citizens money and how budgeted money gets used.
The military is part of the government. The government is restricted in how it can use its resources. Some of those restrictions concern whether it can permissibly promote certain viewpoints over others. For instance, it would be completely illegal for the government to budget money for the production of conservative campaign ads, even if that may, indeed, be in the interests of a conservative government.
So, for instance, if the government decided to pursue civic education through the disbursing of funds to documentary filmmakers, that might well be perfectly legal. But, however, they could not go on to discriminate between who was eligible to receive those funds on the basis of the government's receptivity to the viewpoints contained in said documentary. Once you are allowing the Club For Growth to access government funds to make a documentary, you also have to allow the Sierra Club to do the same.
Of course, Congress could always decide against distributing those funds to anyone. And the military could always decide to categorically deny access to their materials and equipment to filmmakers. But the question here is: once you grant this subsidy to certain groups, can you also refuse to grant it to others?
Also that law for school groups means if they say yes to conservative after school club, they cant say no to a liberal one(terrible example). its literally for discrimination. It doesnt stop them from saying no for whatever reason they feel like otherwise(if theres a math club and I want to make a "fart" club, they can say no). Theres church and state laws in place too, but that doesnt stop the boy scouts from having meetings there all the time.
How is it discrimination when a school allows liberal clubs and bans conservative ones (or vice versa), and yet not discrimination when the military gives access to conservative filmmakers but not liberal ones?
Also, I think the law on schools in this case is wider than you are letting on. Quoting further from the letter:
According to the federal Equal Access Act, if a public high school allows any student group whose purpose is not directly related to the school's curriculum to meet on school grounds during lunch or before or after school, then it can't deny other student groups the same access to the school because of the content of their proposed discussions. Schools may not pick and choose among clubs based on what they think students should or should not discuss.
I think that once they open the door to non-academic clubs, anything goes.
K-12 public schools in the United States are "no freedoms" zones. So are private schools--the difference being the local administration running the school. I think this is common knowledge--any sort of freedom of expression a student gets is purely at the administration's leisure.
High education schools (including universities) are, I suppose, "less freedom" zones. There's a degree of respect for attending student's rights, but it's still limited. For example, at my university, you're allowed to protest certain political issues, but you circulate information about trying to organize student laborers or graduate teaching assistants? Enjoy being expelled and physically removed by campus police.
Sorry, no. Public schools in the US are not 'no freedom' zones - at least not officially. The Supreme Court has swung back toward the more restrictive view, and of course any case mentioning drugs makes SCOTUS come up with some incredibly inane opinions. But they are not 'no freedom' zones.
They are pretty much no freedom zones man, you need a pass to go to the damned bathroom.
override367 on
0
Options
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
K-12 public schools in the United States are "no freedoms" zones. So are private schools--the difference being the local administration running the school. I think this is common knowledge--any sort of freedom of expression a student gets is purely at the administration's leisure.
High education schools (including universities) are, I suppose, "less freedom" zones. There's a degree of respect for attending student's rights, but it's still limited. For example, at my university, you're allowed to protest certain political issues, but you circulate information about trying to organize student laborers or graduate teaching assistants? Enjoy being expelled and physically removed by campus police.
Sorry, no. Public schools in the US are not 'no freedom' zones - at least not officially. The Supreme Court has swung back toward the more restrictive view, and of course any case mentioning drugs makes SCOTUS come up with some incredibly inane opinions. But they are not 'no freedom' zones.
They are pretty much no freedom zones man, you need a pass to go to the damned bathroom.
Excellent. I suggest next time you find a source before making bold claims like that.
Actually, is a book a good enough source? What is an acceptable source? How do i find an acceptable source? Do you really think it's that bold to claim that there's a distinct undercurrent of pro-war messages in Hollywood and that the Pentagon works with filmmakers?
I think part of the trouble is in the way you're framing this. Violence in media isn't directed by any sort of conscious conspiracy, I think the roots for such things are formed more from cultural trends. I don't believe there's one or more particular groups or organizations controlling these trends either. There's certainly people better able and willing to manipulate them for various purposes though. I'm not sure if humans have the ability or power to control aspects of our culture like violence to a very significant degree. It seems too far reaching right now.
Violence in the form of combat is just a long term trend in places like North America. I'm not as familiar with non western mainstream visual media so I can't speak to that. Japan certainly has violence ingrained in it's visual culture but it's different. Not better or worse, just different. I think that there's more of an awareness of the absurdity of human violence in Japanese mainstream media. This is from my observation though, not any specific study or anything like that.
K-12 public schools in the United States are "no freedoms" zones. So are private schools--the difference being the local administration running the school. I think this is common knowledge--any sort of freedom of expression a student gets is purely at the administration's leisure.
High education schools (including universities) are, I suppose, "less freedom" zones. There's a degree of respect for attending student's rights, but it's still limited. For example, at my university, you're allowed to protest certain political issues, but you circulate information about trying to organize student laborers or graduate teaching assistants? Enjoy being expelled and physically removed by campus police.
Sorry, no. Public schools in the US are not 'no freedom' zones - at least not officially. The Supreme Court has swung back toward the more restrictive view, and of course any case mentioning drugs makes SCOTUS come up with some incredibly inane opinions. But they are not 'no freedom' zones.
They are pretty much no freedom zones man, you need a pass to go to the damned bathroom.
There is no constitutional right to bathrooms.
Sorry, no. "At least not officially" does not mean that the Supreme Court's rulings have an immediate and actual impact on the actual body that enforces this things...namely, administration. If they did, I'm guessing my university wouldn't be so willingly to threaten any student who yelled "Union" loud enough.
If you think so long as you don't mention illegal drugs, you won't be bothered...man, I wish I lived where you did. In fact, I suspect the provost and president might not give a shit about drugs. And they don't really care what way the Supreme Court is swinging that hour.
Sorry, no. "At least not officially" does not mean that the Supreme Court's rulings have an immediate and actual impact on the actual body that enforces this things...namely, administration. If they did, I'm guessing my university wouldn't be so willingly to threaten any student who yelled "Union" loud enough.
If you think so long as you don't mention illegal drugs, you won't be bothered...man, I wish I lived where you did. In fact, I suspect the provost and president might not give a shit about drugs. And they don't really care what way the Supreme Court is swinging that hour.
Could you make up your mind as to whether you are talking about K-12 (public) schools in the US, or universities of some flavor of 'public'? And are we talking about the First Amendment or union-busting?
mythago on
Three lines of plaintext:
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
Sorry, no. "At least not officially" does not mean that the Supreme Court's rulings have an immediate and actual impact on the actual body that enforces this things...namely, administration. If they did, I'm guessing my university wouldn't be so willingly to threaten any student who yelled "Union" loud enough.
If you think so long as you don't mention illegal drugs, you won't be bothered...man, I wish I lived where you did. In fact, I suspect the provost and president might not give a shit about drugs. And they don't really care what way the Supreme Court is swinging that hour.
Could you make up your mind as to whether you are talking about K-12 (public) schools in the US, or universities of some flavor of 'public'? And are we talking about the First Amendment or union-busting?
I'm sorry, so protection of speech only applies so long as you're talking about anything besides organized labor? Because the issue here isn't "Being expelled for organizing a union," the issue is "Being expelled for attempt to gauge interest or disseminate information on organizing a union."
I'm not aware of K-12 schools hiring students in large enough bodies to actually create a situation that might lead to something comparable either. Sorry if the differences between a state university (though only kind I'm personally familiar with) and public schools aren't clear enough to you.
Synthesis on
0
Options
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
Because the issue here isn't "Being expelled for organizing a union," the issue is "Being expelled for attempt to gauge interest or disseminate information on organizing a union."
If a public university in the united states is expelling or otherwise threatening students on the basis of their avowed pro-union views, then what they are doing is almost certainly illegal and you or other students should contact the ACLU. Because, as I have been saying, students do, in fact, have rights.
I really don't see how its possibly illegal for the military to decide not to spend its money on a project it doesn't like and instead spend its money on something it does like.
If those projects are politically motivated then it's really no different from, say, the military buying ads to support presidential candidates they like. Which should be pretty obviously wrong.
The sole concern of the military is the portrayal of the military. Unless they're deciding not to provide equipment (And again, it's equipment, people, and time they're providing for money, they aren't just giving money away to studios) because of how a movie portrays a political figure, then it's an issue.
Because the issue here isn't "Being expelled for organizing a union," the issue is "Being expelled for attempt to gauge interest or disseminate information on organizing a union."
If a public university in the united states is expelling or otherwise threatening students on the basis of their avowed pro-union views, then what they are doing is almost certainly illegal and you or other students should contact the ACLU. Because, as I have been saying, students do, in fact, have rights.
I think this has been tried before--mostly because the the response to pushing the matter (for example, handing out fliers on campus) are threats. Not "We're going to break your legs" threats, but "We will make it impossible for you to remain a student, even if the Department Head disagrees with us."
And people have been fired from their positions (pretty common), and expelled (less common). The end consequence is that any sort of agitation is incredibly vague, usually going with "The Right to Education" as the tagline instead, which results in no one getting ejected from their assistantships.
This has been going on for years before I've been here, of course. And it wouldn't be the first time the university administration did something blatantly illegal. It's illegal to consume alcohol in Sanford Stadium during university sports functions, but they found a way around that long ago.
Not a perfect analogy, I know. I should ask what kind of recourse they've considered, and if it involves the ACLU, because the most recent time the issue was brought up, sympathetic professors were seriously warning students that they were putting their academic careers in jeopardy, both from a financial standpoint, and with their actual standing.
They are pretty much no freedom zones man, you need a pass to go to the damned bathroom.
The unfortunate thing about saying this is that
1) Kids in school do actually have rights
and
2) They need to know that fact in order to be in any position to protest when said rights are violated.
Now, I'm all for cheerleading for even more rights, but let's not let that get in the way of educating people about the ones they already have.
Trying to fight for your rights in school just gets you suspended, and your parents are the only ones who can do anything about it (K-12)
Did you never have any serious issues with administration? Unless your parents are willing to see things to a court room you don't really have rights, no.
You have all your rights at a school, it's just an institution that has certain rules you need to follow if you wish to remain a member. Failing to work with the rules results in being suspended or expelled from the institution. What's so anti-freedom about this, again? If I joined a golf club and the clubhouse had certain rules but I said "fuck this no freedom zone, I'm going to exercise my right to be a jackass" and then they expelled me from the club, we'd agree that's a perfectly ordinary response right?
I larger issue is that the military will present pr as "fact-checking" when studios reach out to them, so that it's impossible to find out how a commander would really act because the best positioned consultants would call any deviation from omniscient godking inaccurate.
that's pure bullshit
the "new officer who chokes on his first mission" stereotype didn't come from thin air, plenty of movies and TV shows, even those supported by the pentagon use it
To me, Japan shows that you can be rich, peaceful, democratic, culturally different and not white.
how many rich, culturaly not japanese and not asian people are there in Japan again?
but hey, as long as the rich people aren't those evil whites everything is o.k. right?
Posts
Didn't they get access to, I don't know, jets and carriers and such for filming? I'd say they probably would have to pay a lot more than they did to "rent" that. I guess funding might not be the best word, but a lot of movies use material that's borrowed from armed forces, and it also requires that military authorities read the script and for the filmmakers to change parts to make it, shall we say, more palatable.
Funding or aid or not, though, these movies had modifications done after military authorities read them specifically to make the navy/army/war/what have you appear in as positive a light as possible. Funding or not, there's a very real propagandist aspect to them.
Edit: Militarism is an "ism" in entertainment, right? No one can claim i'm off-topic now, right?
Check out my site, the Bismuth Heart | My Twitter
Not really. Unless it's specified in a contract to use said equipment, but that would vary from film to film anyway. Though if such a requirement were made for the use of genuine military equipment, there's the very simple option of not using said equipment.
And with your two specific examples, nothing of the sort was required. The studio, again, went to the military requesting their opinion on the script for Top Gun. They wanted their input to make a better script. While with Red Dawn nothing of the sort ever occurred.
Except, as explained above, there's absolutely no truth to that statement. The closest is with Top Gun where the military was solicited for input. No requirements were made by the military.
to quote a few passages...
(Emphasis mine)
Either way, officially backed or not, Red Dawn, Top Gun, hell, even Battle for LA, those are high-budget blockbuster movies that certainly have an element of pro-war propaganda. They certainly are aimed at teenagers and they certainly do have an effect on them. To claim there is no pro-war undercurrent in Hollywood today is plain ignorant, and that undercurrent runs deep.
Check out my site, the Bismuth Heart | My Twitter
Edit: To say nothing of the fact that anti war movies come out of Hollywood as well.
Anyways, I find it hilarious how people in the US refer to moderate-center politics as "leftist", as disruptor2x did.
Back to topic:
I guess all current international cultural currents are misogynistic in some way or another. The relevant aspects are 1) How much (in relation to others) and 2) whether things are changing or not.
And back to back to topic: Robotech might bother us today, but it was indeed a step forward back then. Even if Lisa seems incompetent, the simple fact that she was second-in-command is a big deal.
We are gonna get bothered by almost any work of media that was not specifically made to be PC. That's probably a sad situation, but many times they are portraying how things seem to be in a particular place and time.
Oh, god, we have those here in Brazil a lot. Fucking idiots. I'm more of a moderate leftist, but those guys. Fucking idiots. They're still living in the "Ditadura" days, back in the 60's and 70's (which was a right wing murderous dictatorship supported by the US I have to add).
But hey, Synthesis, what do you mean with the whole "man-hating Taiwanese army" thing? How are things organized there? I don't get why should your uncle hate women.
Yes, because the vast majority of films from Hollywood are anti-war and not pro war, right?
i'll admit it, i can't find sources very well, I know there's books written about that but I'd need to buy them to get the sources, I guess. I found there's "operation Hollywood: ow the Pentagon shapes and censors the movies" that's been used as a source in several articles, it's written by a Pentagon insider. You probably wouldn't accept it as a source anyway.
"'ism/'obia and Entertainment: How much is too much"... Militarism in Entertainment is an interesting enough topic, that falls within that subject, no?
Check out my site, the Bismuth Heart | My Twitter
Excellent. I suggest next time you find a source before making bold claims like that.
Actually, is a book a good enough source? What is an acceptable source? How do i find an acceptable source? Do you really think it's that bold to claim that there's a distinct undercurrent of pro-war messages in Hollywood and that the Pentagon works with filmmakers?
Check out my site, the Bismuth Heart | My Twitter
And I've also read plenty of stuff indicating that the movie-set consultants the US armed forces employ can have quite the influence on portrayals. 'Do it our way or you don't get permission to feature this fancy hardware that's integral to the plot", sort of thing.
There really isn't anything wrong about this either. the government doesn't force anyone to shed anything in a certain light. If you want to play a game with their ball, its just going to be their rules is all. It's actually pretty well known that if you want support from the government in your film theres a large list of rules to follow. One of the ones I found out recently was that you have to get a certain amount of items wrong on an officers uniform.
Does this force huge changes in some movies? I like to point towards the two transformers movies to answer that question. All of a sudden the movies are about the american army kicking alien robot asses. I can't tell if this is just the director/whomever being "american military fuck yeah", or the government asking for the changes in exchange for funding/help(cant make us look worthless in a fight), but it sounds a bit like both.
I larger issue is that the military will present pr as "fact-checking" when studios reach out to them, so that it's impossible to find out how a commander would really act because the best positioned consultants would call any deviation from omniscient godking inaccurate.
Sorry I must of edited the sentence out, but that should of included "but government isnt going to force its way into your private movie and change things up". Dr. Strangelove is a great example of this on many different levels.
I don't think I am understanding this right. Are you saying that the government will say something contrary to what a consultant with experience would say? I think that goes without saying due to protocol vs realistic reaction.
Consider the following law: anyone who wants to buy advertising on public subway cars must make sure that their advertisements do not promote or positively portray drug use. Or, how about: anyone who wants to start a public school club must check with the school to ensure that their club's philosophy and activities are consistent with those of the school. Both of these examples involve the government telling you what you can do if you want to play with their resources. You can, of course, always continue to shout your message off a cardboard box on a street corner--the requirements on using public advertising would not impede you from disseminating your message in other media. Similarly, you can, of course, always continue to promote your ideology elsewhere even when you're not allowed to use a school club to do so. It seems like, according to both your reasoning, these should be totally fine.
But, in fact, both of these constitute viewpoint discrimination and are certainly illegal. In fact, the government cannot pick and choose who to allow to use subway advertising on the basis of which message they like any more than they can pick and choose who is allowed to speak at a public park based on who they like. Nor can they pick and choose who can form a school club on the basis of which clubs they like: if your public school allows the "rah rah home team" football club, then they are legally obligated to also allow a gay-straight alliance. In fact, for this reason, some schools have banned all student clubs as their only legal means of preventing a gay-straight alliance from forming. The government is barred from picking and choosing on the basis of viewpoint content. It's a good thing, too, because if they were allowed to, it would massively curtail the arena in which free speech remains a viable right. If the government could arbitrarily deny you access to their resources under the aegis of disliking your political thought, there would be very little left over for you to work with.
So no, if the military does actually pick and choose movies to give special perks to, under the rationalization that some of said movies promote patriotism and others don't, then that sounds to me like impermissible viewpoint discrimination. There might be some exception under the notion of recruitment as a legitimate state interest, however, it strikes me as exactly the sort of government meddling in the social and political sphere which our constitutional rights are tailored to prevent.
double edit: now that I think about it, if you want to shut down a subway and use it for your movie, you are still going to have to sign a contract with the city to use the car, and its still going to be their rules. Cities bid and give tax credits all the time to get films made in their cities as well.
This is actually already true, schools in America are basically a "no freedoms" zone.
I get the argument you are trying to make. But the government cant tell you what you can and cant do in your movie with the image/footage of a tank or the tank you bought somewhere else. But if you want to borrow their tank? its the same as dealing with any other company, you sign an agreement and follow their rules for the opportunity if you want to borrow their tank.
I think the real issue here is that the military IS using public funding, our tax money to do these things, and make these decisions. Do we want our money funding hollywood movies? To me its a decent compromise: they have to advertise(want more videos of rock climbing and seals exiting water to godsmack?), and we can get some pretty awesome content out of it.
edit: Is this too off topic? I apologize if so and we can take it somewhere else or drop it.
High education schools (including universities) are, I suppose, "less freedom" zones. There's a degree of respect for attending student's rights, but it's still limited. For example, at my university, you're allowed to protest certain political issues, but you circulate information about trying to organize student laborers or graduate teaching assistants? Enjoy being expelled and physically removed by campus police.
I think that the relevant distinction here is between commercial and political speech? One cannot advertise illegal services, okay, and there are also restrictions on how one can advertise e.g. cigarettes for sale (not in a manner that targets youngsters, not without a health disclaimer, and etc). However, one can certainly put up an ad with a marijuana leaf saying "legalize it!" This was, in fact, an actual case. Said ad has an overtly political message, and it cannot be denied on the basis of that political content.
Works of art with political content are usually a highly protected class of speech. So, for instance, a movie with anti-military or subversive overtones would qualify for the highest forms of protection, which would, in turn, separate it from bong advertisements designed to sell more units by indicating their potential for illegal use.
Not actually, no.
Although I have to admit:
Edit: I figured I should probably stop talking out my ass and actually ask my friend who's in law school. She reports:
Of course, something being legal and advantageous doesn't make it morally right.
The plus side is Transformers would only be like, 20 minutes long, tops
Also that law for school groups means if they say yes to conservative after school club, they cant say no to a liberal one(terrible example). its literally for discrimination. It doesnt stop them from saying no for whatever reason they feel like otherwise(if theres a math club and I want to make a "fart" club, they can say no). Theres church and state laws in place too, but that doesnt stop the boy scouts from having meetings there all the time.
Sorry, no. Public schools in the US are not 'no freedom' zones - at least not officially. The Supreme Court has swung back toward the more restrictive view, and of course any case mentioning drugs makes SCOTUS come up with some incredibly inane opinions. But they are not 'no freedom' zones.
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
If those projects are politically motivated then it's really no different from, say, the military buying ads to support presidential candidates they like. Which should be pretty obviously wrong.
The military is part of the government. The government is restricted in how it can use its resources. Some of those restrictions concern whether it can permissibly promote certain viewpoints over others. For instance, it would be completely illegal for the government to budget money for the production of conservative campaign ads, even if that may, indeed, be in the interests of a conservative government.
So, for instance, if the government decided to pursue civic education through the disbursing of funds to documentary filmmakers, that might well be perfectly legal. But, however, they could not go on to discriminate between who was eligible to receive those funds on the basis of the government's receptivity to the viewpoints contained in said documentary. Once you are allowing the Club For Growth to access government funds to make a documentary, you also have to allow the Sierra Club to do the same.
Of course, Congress could always decide against distributing those funds to anyone. And the military could always decide to categorically deny access to their materials and equipment to filmmakers. But the question here is: once you grant this subsidy to certain groups, can you also refuse to grant it to others?
How is it discrimination when a school allows liberal clubs and bans conservative ones (or vice versa), and yet not discrimination when the military gives access to conservative filmmakers but not liberal ones?
Also, I think the law on schools in this case is wider than you are letting on. Quoting further from the letter:
I think that once they open the door to non-academic clubs, anything goes.
They are pretty much no freedom zones man, you need a pass to go to the damned bathroom.
The unfortunate thing about saying this is that
1) Kids in school do actually have rights
and
2) They need to know that fact in order to be in any position to protest when said rights are violated.
Now, I'm all for cheerleading for even more rights, but let's not let that get in the way of educating people about the ones they already have.
There is no constitutional right to bathrooms.
Violence in the form of combat is just a long term trend in places like North America. I'm not as familiar with non western mainstream visual media so I can't speak to that. Japan certainly has violence ingrained in it's visual culture but it's different. Not better or worse, just different. I think that there's more of an awareness of the absurdity of human violence in Japanese mainstream media. This is from my observation though, not any specific study or anything like that.
Sorry, no. "At least not officially" does not mean that the Supreme Court's rulings have an immediate and actual impact on the actual body that enforces this things...namely, administration. If they did, I'm guessing my university wouldn't be so willingly to threaten any student who yelled "Union" loud enough.
If you think so long as you don't mention illegal drugs, you won't be bothered...man, I wish I lived where you did. In fact, I suspect the provost and president might not give a shit about drugs. And they don't really care what way the Supreme Court is swinging that hour.
Could you make up your mind as to whether you are talking about K-12 (public) schools in the US, or universities of some flavor of 'public'? And are we talking about the First Amendment or union-busting?
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
I'm sorry, so protection of speech only applies so long as you're talking about anything besides organized labor? Because the issue here isn't "Being expelled for organizing a union," the issue is "Being expelled for attempt to gauge interest or disseminate information on organizing a union."
I'm not aware of K-12 schools hiring students in large enough bodies to actually create a situation that might lead to something comparable either. Sorry if the differences between a state university (though only kind I'm personally familiar with) and public schools aren't clear enough to you.
If a public university in the united states is expelling or otherwise threatening students on the basis of their avowed pro-union views, then what they are doing is almost certainly illegal and you or other students should contact the ACLU. Because, as I have been saying, students do, in fact, have rights.
The sole concern of the military is the portrayal of the military. Unless they're deciding not to provide equipment (And again, it's equipment, people, and time they're providing for money, they aren't just giving money away to studios) because of how a movie portrays a political figure, then it's an issue.
I think this has been tried before--mostly because the the response to pushing the matter (for example, handing out fliers on campus) are threats. Not "We're going to break your legs" threats, but "We will make it impossible for you to remain a student, even if the Department Head disagrees with us."
And people have been fired from their positions (pretty common), and expelled (less common). The end consequence is that any sort of agitation is incredibly vague, usually going with "The Right to Education" as the tagline instead, which results in no one getting ejected from their assistantships.
This has been going on for years before I've been here, of course. And it wouldn't be the first time the university administration did something blatantly illegal. It's illegal to consume alcohol in Sanford Stadium during university sports functions, but they found a way around that long ago.
Not a perfect analogy, I know. I should ask what kind of recourse they've considered, and if it involves the ACLU, because the most recent time the issue was brought up, sympathetic professors were seriously warning students that they were putting their academic careers in jeopardy, both from a financial standpoint, and with their actual standing.
Trying to fight for your rights in school just gets you suspended, and your parents are the only ones who can do anything about it (K-12)
Did you never have any serious issues with administration? Unless your parents are willing to see things to a court room you don't really have rights, no.
the "new officer who chokes on his first mission" stereotype didn't come from thin air, plenty of movies and TV shows, even those supported by the pentagon use it
how many rich, culturaly not japanese and not asian people are there in Japan again?
but hey, as long as the rich people aren't those evil whites everything is o.k. right?