The Wall Street Journal Editorials
Is Hollywood Pro-Military Now?
March 25, 2002
Except for the special case of movies about World War II,
it has been a long time since we have seen a major film that shows
modern American soldiers fighting hard battles with courage, dignity
and a sense of purpose. And now we have two. "Black Hawk Down,"
directed by the highly-regarded Ridley Scott ("Gladiator"), is set
on the chaotic streets of Mogadishu in 1993, and has grossed $110
million since its wide release two months ago. It also snared four
Academy Award nominations. "We Were Soldiers," which tells the story
of those who fought America's first major battle against the North
Vietnamese Army in late 1965, stars Mel Gibson and took in $53
million in its first 17 days.
With
the recent box-office success of these two films, one is tempted to
conclude that mainstream Hollywood has broken new ground in its
depiction of American soldiers at war. The simplicity of the plot
lines, and the emphasis on the sheer ferocity of the fighting,
overrides the usual political implications and internal conflicts
that have so characterized post-World War II movies. As a
consequence, at their end a viewer is left with the irrefutable
conclusion that these were good men, serving their country at
considerable cost. In short, they were every bit as good, as brave,
as dedicated and as deserving of praise, as their World War II
predecessors.
As mundane as it may sound to those who have served, this concept is
fresh ground in Hollywood. But the jury is still out as to whether
it constitutes a trend.
It is often said that Hollywood studios will "follow the money" when
it comes to choosing film topics, but this is only a partial truism.
Collectively, Hollywood is still the most politically correct
culture in America, and its decision-makers are highly conscious of
the power of a film to shape public opinion. A film topic that goes
against the grain of liberal orthodoxy is hard-pressed to find a
producer, and especially a studio, with the power to work it through
the many-headed Hydra called the development process.
And this is especially true of war movies, for a variety of rather
complicated reasons. Without the philosophically conservative Mr.
Gibson, or the combination of Oscar-winner Mr. Scott and producer
Jerry Bruckheimer ("Top Gun"), it is doubtful that either of these
highly successful films would have made it to the marketplace.
Why is it so hard for Hollywood's decision-makers to make films that
honor those who have fought in America's wars since World War II?
There are a variety of reasons. Some are commercial, but many others
are not.
First and foremost, for all its international reach, Hollywood's
management culture is largely inbred, and the very notion of
voluntary military service is an anomaly to its members. For every
person who is hired at a studio or major agency or production office
there are probably 10 with the talent and desire to work there. In a
business that is intensely relationship-driven, the tendency is to
hire those with whom one is most comfortable, both philosophically
and in terms of background.
Few in Hollywood's power structure have served in the military, and
it is rare to find someone in that culture who truly comprehends
either the pride in serving or the sacrifices that attend it. The
military is not only foreign to Hollywood's elites; for some, it is
viewed with disdain and even fear.
On two different occasions over the past several years I have been
offered the same spontaneous comment, one by an Oscar-winning
director and another by the head of a major studio. While not
definitive of Hollywood's attitudes, it certainly is instructive.
"If my son were to tell me that he was going into the military,"
both of them said, "I would do everything in my power to keep it
from happening."
Next, movies need heroes and villains. War movies historically have
pitted the good guys (ours) against the bad guys. But except for the
old standby topics surrounding World War II, the relative morality
that accompanies political correctness leaves no room for such
judgments in today's war films.
Rather than externalizing the conflict, the struggle between good
and evil in more recent war films has taken place within the
American military, usually on issues of corruption or morality. This
is especially true with respect to films about the Vietnam War, as
for instance "Platoon," "Casualties of War" and "Apocalypse Now."
Hollywood was the most virulently antiwar culture in our society
during that war, and has been reluctant to show American soldiers
fighting, and usually defeating, a determined enemy.
The realities of international marketing also argue against
so-called patriotic films. Starting about 10 years ago, the revenue
flow from foreign sales became larger than domestic sales. This
expanded the appeal of high-action, low-dialogue thrillers, and also
caused many studios to shy away from topics that would offend
foreign moviegoers by showing Americans as overtly nationalistic or
politically insensitive. Last year Disney went very soft on the
Japanese in "Pearl Harbor," and even deleted certain scenes from the
version shown in Japan rather than risk offending a Japanese
audience.
There is also a skeptical unease in Hollywood with topics that might
brand a producer or studio as being susceptible to political
propaganda. Although one can argue with considerable merit that an
unspoken conservative "blacklisting" is alive and well in Hollywood,
the culture still resonates with memories of the McCarthy era of 50
years ago.
Further, mainstream America is too often the whipping post in modern
films, constituting the "evil" in the traditional Hollywood formula,
against which the struggles of "good" -- all manner of politically
correct agendas -- are measured. The much-touted "American Beauty"
is the best recent example. Against such a standard, the traditional
military, along with its virtues of duty and service to country, is
anathema. Witness, for instance, the subtle denigration of its
culture in such mega hits as "A Few Good Men."
With tens of thousands of scripts registered at the
Writer's Guild every year and only some 300 feature films actually
being made, it is possible that Hollywood will revert to form once
the war on terrorism has abated. But it is also possible that the
events of the past six months may help change perceptions there.
For the first time in many years, the country has come to
understand that distant and seemingly innocuous events can bring
harm to us and to our interests if they are ignored. The average
citizen is now following the activities of our military on a daily
basis, and has been exposed, however vicariously, to the hardships
and sacrifices that characterize military service. And there seems
to be, finally, a wide acceptance of the notion that fighting in a
far off land at great risk frequently involves courage and even
honor. The major networks, losing audiences hand over first in
recent years, are set to bring this reality home to TV viewers with
several series showing the armed forces in action.
And who knows? Messrs. Gibson and Scott have demonstrated a
truth known full well in the hinterlands of America -- that the
people in this country have always loved their soldiers and their
veterans, and will pay to see movies that depict them positively.
Their films could not have brought us these reminders at a better
time.
UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS