University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

The development of Hollywood's relationship with the military: a guide for filmmakers and military entertainment liaison officers

(USC Thesis Other)

The development of Hollywood's relationship with the military: a guide for filmmakers and military entertainment liaison officers

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content THE DEVELOPMENT OF HOLLYWOOD’S RELATIONSHIP
WITH THE MILITARY:
A GUIDE FOR FILMMAKERS AND
MILITARY ENTERTAINMENT LIAISON OFFICERS

by

Jim Gregory

A Thesis Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
MASTER OF ARTS
(STRATEGIC PUBLIC RELATIONS)

December 2008

Copyright 2008 James Overton Gregory
ii
Acknowledgements

My gratitude goes out to the many who helped me with this thesis; it would have been
impossible to complete without their assistance. First, I must thank my wife, Bonni and
two daughters, Haley and Ashley for enduring the many hours I spent on this project.
Their love kept me going. Next, I am in debt to Larry Suid, who wrote both Guts and
Glory: The Making of the American Military Image in Film and Stars and Stripes on
Screen: A Comprehensive Guide to Portrayals of American Military on Film. Those two
books were invaluable to me. Moreover, Larry was willing to meet with me and answer
my questions, even as he pursued his most recent project, a biography of Fred
Zinnemann. I also owe thanks to all of the military entertainment liaisons who provided
interviews, including Phil Strub (DoD), Vince Ogilvie (DoD), Lt. Col. Todd Breasseale
(USA), Ken Hawes (USA), Lt. Col. Francisco Hamm (USAF), Chuck Davis (USAF),
Gunnery Sgt. Santiago Zapata (USMC), Bob Anderson (USN) and Cmdr. Kevin Raimer
(USCG). Tom McCollum, a former Army entertainment liaison also provided insight for
my work. Several film industry professionals enriched my work by offering their
perspective on my questions, to include Ian Bryce (producer), Jim Bernstein
(screenwriter), Kimberly Peirce (director) and Jim Dever (technical advisor). Peter
Exline, who teaches “the Movie Biz” and “Script Analysis” at the University of Southern
California, taught me so much about the film industry. He answered all of the questions I
was too embarrassed to ask others. Finally, I’d like to thank my thesis committee,
professors Jenn Floto, Dan Durbin and Joe Saltzman, who offered their guidance as I
marched toward completion of this project. It has been a great experience!
iii
Table of Contents

Acknowledgements ii
Abstract v
Chapter 1: Military Support to Feature Films 1
Chapter 2: Levels of Support 7
Chapter 3: The History 8
Pre WWI Period 8
WWI Period 9
The Unbeliever 9
Post WWI Period (1920- November 1941) 11
Wings 11
The Patent Leather Kid 13
Submarine 14
Devil Dogs of the Air 16
Sergeant York 17
WWII Period (December 1941-1945) 18
Air Force 19
Thirty Seconds Over Tokyo 20
Post WWII Period (1946-1949) 21
Sands of Iwo Jima 22
Battleground 23
Korean War Period (1950-1953) 24
One Minute to Zero 25
From Here to Eternity 26
Cold War Period (1954-1964) 28
On the Beach 28
The Longest Day 31
Vietnam Period (1965-1975) 33
The Green Berets 34
Limbo 35
Post-Vietnam Period (1976-1985) 37
Go Tell the Spartans 38
Hair 39
Coming Home 41
The Great Santini 42
An Officer and a Gentleman 44
Desert Storm Period (1986-2001) 46
Top Gun 47
iv
Platoon 49
Full Metal Jacket 50
Hamburger Hill 51
A Few Good Men 52
Forrest Gump 54
Crimson Tide 56
G.I. Jane 57
Saving Private Ryan 58
Men of Honor 60
Pearl Harbor 61
Black Hawk Down 63
We Were Soldiers 65
War on Terror Period (2002-present) 65
Jarhead 66
War of the Worlds 67
Flags of Our Fathers 69
In the Valley of Elah 70
Transformers 71
Lions for Lambs 72
Stop-loss 74
The Lucky Ones 75

Chapter 4: The Current Situation 77

Chapter 5: Recommendations 81
For the military 81
For filmmakers 90

Bibliography 92
v
Abstract

War movies have captivated audiences since the earliest days of the film industry,
and the military has assisted filmmakers since that time. This thesis describes military
support to filmmakers, first by examining the regulations, then through analysis of 42
military-related films. The films chosen for historical analysis do not constitute a
complete list. It is my intent that the selected films will reveal considerations taken by
past and present military entertainment liaison personnel. Thus, through their
examination, the reader will gain a better understanding of how the military decides to
provide assistance to filmmakers as well as how filmmakers gain approval to receive
assistance if they so choose. Finally, it examines the current situation and offers
recommendations for future military engagement with the entertainment business – one
of the most influential sectors of our global society.
1
Chapter 1: Military Support to Feature Films

Each of the U.S. military services (Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps and
Coast Guard) maintains an entertainment liaison office in Los Angeles, CA. The primary
purpose of these offices is to provide a point of contact for anyone interested in making a
movie, TV show, video game or music video that features the U.S. military. Producers,
writers and studio executives who wish to gain subject-matter expertise, or often more
importantly, access to military locations and equipment, will contact the appropriate
service’s office to obtain assistance.
By looking historically at the decisions made by those in the entertainment liaison
offices, we can examine rationales for a military service deciding to provide support or
deny assistance to a feature film project. Unfortunately, no one can definitively state
whether one film will be supported by the military rather than another, especially with so
many personalities and circumstances involved in the process. To begin to understand
the process, one must begin by examining the regulations.
The procedure for obtaining assistance is specified in the Department of Defense
Instruction (DoDI) 5410.16, “DoD Assistance to Non-Government, Entertainment-
Oriented Motion Picture, Television, and Video Productions,” dated January 26, 1988.
The document states:
It is DoD policy that government assistance may be provided to an
entertainment-oriented motion picture, television, or video production when
cooperation of the producers with the Government results in benefiting the
Department of Defense or when this would be in the best national interest, based
on consideration of the following factors:

2
1. The production must be authentic in its portrayal of actual persons, places,
military operations, and historical events. Fictional portrayals must depict
a feasible interpretation of military life, operations, and policies.
2. The production is of informational value and considered to be in the best
interest of public understanding of the U.S. Armed Forces and the
Department of Defense.
3. The production may provide services to the general public relating to, or
enhancing, the U.S. Armed Forces recruiting and retention programs.
4. The production should not appear to condone or endorse activities by
private citizens or organizations when such activities are contrary to U.S.
Government policy.
1

When portraying real persons or events, however, authenticity will often get in the
way of dramatic effect. Arguably, the truth may sometimes be stranger than fiction, but it
is also sometimes much more boring. Scriptwriters worldwide know that audiences
demand drama in feature films, and to make a story more interesting, a writer may inject
a fictional dramatic event into a real person’s life. Consider what Boston Globe
correspondent Donald Murray, a World War II veteran, said in a 2005 article:
Most of the time, we stayed 15 yards apart so a grenade or mortar shell would not
eliminate an entire unit. No dramatic dialogue. We rarely talked because it might
reveal our position to the hidden enemy. We fought or moved units as much as
possible in the dark. We feared the beautiful moonlight might give us away. It is
hard to film actors in the dark. We wore helmets all the time because we were
ordered to, and after the first rolling barrage of enemy artillery, we knew firsthand
it was a good idea.
2

If the DoD strictly followed the first condition outlined in DoDI 5410.16, the
inclusion of fictional events would nearly always get in the way of military acquiescence
to support a Hollywood filmmaker. Of course, when considering a fictional portrayal, a
“feasible interpretation of military life, operations, and policies” can quickly become very
subjective. What is feasible to a lower enlisted member may not be as feasible to a mid-

1
Department of Defense Instruction 5410.16. January 26, 1988. pg. 2.
2
Murray, Donald M. (2005, Nov. 22). Boston Globe. War is nothing like a Hollywood movie. Retrieved
Sept. 2, 2008 from
http://www.boston.com/yourlife/articles/2005/11/22/war_is_nothing_like_a_hollywood_movie/
3
grade officer or a DoD civilian. The term “feasible,” according to the Merriam Webster
online dictionary, means “capable of being done or carried out,” but from discussions
with members of the entertainment liaison offices, the term is better defined as likely to
be done or carried out, and therefore more limiting. Phil Strub, special assistant for
Entertainment Media at the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) said that if a project
portrays “the U.S. military as unrelentingly evil, we're not going to work on it and that's
because we don't believe that's realistic.”
3

The second condition – that a screenplay should be of informational value to the
American public – is aligned with the first regarding authenticity. One of the primary
functions of military public affairs is to educate the American public about its military.
While the armed forces wants to maintain a positive relationship with all of its
stakeholders (including the film industry), one of its chief communication concerns is
ensuring that the American public understands it’s role, values and history. When
filmmakers produce derogatory storylines based on fictional events, it is not in the best
interest of the military to support them as long as only the bad side is depicted. If
filmmakers are willing to show all sides of an issue, or show an accurate depiction of the
ramifications for transgressions, then even negative scripts can receive support.
The third condition, which refers to recruiting and retention, again is a subjective
measure for deciding support. When asked, none of the personnel working within the
service offices in Los Angeles or the Pentagon believed that any significant studies
existed that linked positive movies to recruiting numbers. Even though recruiting
numbers spiked after Top Gun opened in 1986, no one can point to the movie as the

3
Jenkins, Maureen (2003, March) Boeing Frontiers. Art imitates life for Pentagon liaison. Retrieved Sept.
28, 2008 from http://www.boeing.com/news/frontiers/archive/2003/march/mainfeature2.html.
4
single source for the spike. A 1986 New York Times article highlighted that public
awareness of the Navy was helped by the movie Top Gun, but other recent television
reports about the Navy and two raids launched from aircraft carriers against Libya in the
spring of 1986 possibly contributed as well.
4
Many people will attest to the fact that
movies somewhat influence their perceptions about the military, but these perceptions are
not the primary reasons for joining the military. Because of this, using retention and
recruiting as a condition for support cannot be quantitatively substantiated and remains a
subjective measure.
The last condition for support deals with condoning or endorsing activities
contrary to U.S. Government policy, and is the most objective measure in the DoDI. Even
though government policy changes from with each new administration, the military
supports the most current, regardless of its political views. Therefore, any production
that delves into political criticism will not receive military assistance – the military
cannot and will not support a partisan production. Subjectivity enters into consideration
if the production does not enter the political realm, but instead portrays illicit activities,
such as treason for example. The way the treasonous act is written into the script may
cause one person to see it as condoning the betrayal while another sees it as simply a
portrayal of one person’s actions. If ramifications for the illicit activity are depicted, such
as the traitor being tried and convicted of his or her offenses, then military support is
much more likely.
Taking all of these criteria into consideration, when deciding whether a film
project will receive support, it is still important to remember that each film project is

4
Halloran, Richard (1986, Aug. 29). New York Times. Navy Recovers from Yearlong Recruiting Slump.
Sect A, pg. 13, col. 3.
5

unique, even if it appears to be similar to another. What one person with a conservative
background might see as offensive will deviate from what someone with a more liberal
background might believe, and the military, like society, has both viewpoints represented
with degrees of variance interspersed throughout. For example, just because the Army
supported From Here to Eternity in 1953, arguably a more conservative time period than
2008, it does not necessarily mean that a movie with a similar story would be supported
today. However, it also doesn’t mean that it would be denied today either. More
importantly, just as the filmmakers did for the original movie, today’s filmmakers would
have to agree to enter into negotiations for support, with both sides giving and taking to
reach a final point of agreement beneficial for both parties.
A potential pitfall to the military entertainment liaison position is that there are no
“how to” manuals. No formal training exists to better educate incoming service members
to understand the entertainment industry and the history of assistance provided to
filmmakers. Currently, those assigned to their service entertainment liaison office have
only “on the job training” as well as others in the office to whom they can turn for
guidance or to teach them what they need to do. According to Jim Dever, a retired
Marine sergeant major who serves as a private military technical advisor to the
entertainment industry, the most important characteristic a DoD project officer should
possess is professionalism.
5
Beyond that, the project officer should know exactly what
can be promised and have a vast knowledge of his or her branch of the military, to
include its prior assistance to feature films. Part of this comes from experience, but much
of it can come from learning about Hollywood’s past relationship with the military.

5
Telephone interview with Jim Dever, Sept. 26, 2008.
6
For filmmakers, it is equally important to understand the military culture, both to
gain military assistance, if desired, and to make a film that feels authentic to audiences.
If someone wants to make a movie about the Navy, for example, he/she needs to know
how sailors talk and what is important to them. Of course, he/she can interview off-duty
sailors to gain perspective, but to see the sailors in action, doing their jobs and interacting
with their charges as well as their superiors, a filmmaker needs to coordinate with the
military establishment. If he/she wants military assistance, it also helps to understand
what types of films have received assistance in the past. As previously mentioned, no
two film projects are exactly alike, but the better a filmmaker can understand how those
before him/her succeeded (or failed) in obtaining military cooperation, the greater his/her
chances for receiving his/her own cooperation.
Chapter 2: Levels of Support

Before examining the history of military support to the film industry, it is
important to understand the two different levels of support that the military can offer.

Courtesy assistance entails providing filmmakers access to military bases for
research purposes. It can also include a review of the script for accuracy where the DoD
entertainment liaison representative will make suggestions that the filmmaker can accept
or reject. If requested, a DoD entertainment liaison may choose to visit a set to provide
technical advice regarding accuracy, such as how a command center might look, or how
military props and uniforms are utilized or worn. Normally, filmmakers do not need to
have secured a distribution agreement to receive courtesy assistance.
The next level of assistance is considered full support. For a film project to be
considered for full support, a distribution agreement must have been secured by the
person submitting the film project and the full script must be approved by the military.
Once the script is approved, the appropriate military service will draft a production
agreement for signature. The agreement stipulates the exact assistance that will be
granted throughout the production of the film. Full support entails the assignment of a
DoD project officer, who will provide technical assistance as well as ensure adherence to
the agreed upon script. Depending on the needs of the filmmaker, the cooperation
provided can range from access to military bases and equipment for filming to assistance
with obtaining military extras to perform tasks that could not easily be taught to actors.
7
8

Chapter 3: The History

Pre-WWI Period (1904-1917)

The military and Hollywood have cooperated on films for nearly as long as the
motion picture medium has existed. In 1904, the Navy and the Biograph Company
worked together to create 60 films for audiences at the St. Louis World Fair.
6
In 1911,
director William Humphrey asked Army Air Corps pilot Lt. “Hap” Arnold if he would
fly his biplane for a scene in the movie The Military Air Scout.
7
The Birth of a Nation,
directed by D.W. Griffith in 1915, received assistance from West Point engineers who
gave Griffith technical advice and necessary equipment for his Civil War battle scenes.
8

During the film industry’s infancy, the relationship between the military and
Hollywood was largely informal. If a director had an idea for a scene, he would often go
directly to the source, such as Humphrey did when he convinced Hap Arnold to fly for
his picture. However, on April 13, 1917, President Woodrow Wilson created the
Committee on Public Information (CPI), in part, to increase the American public’s
acceptance for participation in the war in Europe. The Division of Films was responsible
for ensuring promotion of the war in motion pictures. The film industry did not have a

6
Suid, Lawrence (2002). Guts and Glory: The Making of the American Military Image. The University
Press of Kentucky. pg. 13.
7
Haverstick, Dolores A. and Suid, Lawrence (2005). Stars and Stripes on Screen. The Scarecrow Press. pg.
152.
8
Seelye, Katharine Q. (2002, Jun 10). The New York Times. When Hollywood's Big Guns Come Right
From the Source. pg. 1.
9

great reputation in the early 20
th
century, and so it sought to improve its image by lending
support to the CPI’s efforts.
9

WWI Period (1918-1919)

The World War I period saw the production of movies that were censored by the
Film Division of the Committee on Public Information. The military provided assistance
to Hollywood to promote victory and to convey a positive image of itself to audiences.
During this time, movies were particularly influential since motion pictures were a new
medium and they fascinated audiences of the day. Movies that received military
assistance include films such as The Star Spangled Banner, The Unbeliever, and Why
America Will Win to name a few. Many of the CPI-influenced films produced during the
war were made purely to persuade the American public to support the war effort rather
than to educate people about their military as they are more inclined to do today.

The Unbeliever (Marine Corps, 1918 – full support)

Although The Unbeliever, produced by the Edison Company, was not a direct
product of George Creel’s Committee on Public Information (CPI), it did contribute to
the war effort like many of the propaganda films distributed by the CPI. In fact, this film
is an example of when the military, specifically the Marine Corps, used the film as a
recruiting and information tool.

9
Propaganda Critic website. Retrieved Sept. 20, 2008 from
http://www.propagandacritic.com/articles/ww1.cpi.html
10

The Edison Company’s goal was to maximize profits, and it saw the United
States’ entry into World War I as one way to capitalize on patriotic fervor. The
filmmakers, however, initially found it difficult to obtain military assistance as they
waded through military bureaucracy, likely because the military’s focus at the time was
on the war, not moviemaking.
10
Nevertheless, the Marine Corps eventually recognized
the value of a film portraying its values and it agreed to provide men, equipment and
access to Quantico Marine Corps Base in Virginia for filming.
The Marine Corps then seized the opportunity to amplify recruiting efforts by
placing recruiting booths in theaters where the film was being shown. One week after the
film’s release in February, 1918, a theater manager in Denver reported that more than 200
men enlisted in the Marine Corps at the lobby recruiting booth. Following this success,
the distributor, the George Kleine System, wrote to mayors across the country to let them
know that young men from various U.S. communities took part in the filming of the
movie as they underwent combat training at Quantico. Through the partnership with the
Marines, the distributor was able to follow the exploits of deployed Marines, and it sent
letters to city mayors about hometown boys cited for combat gallantry. The mayor of
Perry, Missouri, provided a measure of success for this tactic in a letter to the distributor
saying that the information provided was the first anyone had heard of the “particular
circumstances” of the boy’s actions and subsequent wounding. The mayor also indicated

10
Suid, Lawrence (2002). Guts and Glory: The Making of the American Military Image. The University
Press of Kentucky. pg. 17.
11

that it was “the unanimous verdict of our people that [The Unbeliever] was the greatest
war picture ever shown here.”
11

Post WWI Period (1920- November 1941)

The post World War I period began a new era of isolationism for the United
States. Films served as catharsis for the public and filmmakers realized that they could
draw audiences by showcasing America’s newfound military superiority. This seems to
be the case in the 1927 film Wings, where unprecedented military assistance was
provided. As the 1920s progressed into the 1930s, fascism was becoming more
pronounced in Europe, and Adolf Hitler was gaining in power. In the Asia-Pacific
Theater, Japan was becoming hawkish as well. As potential conflict drew near, the film
industry sought to tell stories of military preparedness. This emphasis combined with
congressional anti-propagandist efforts to curtail involvement in another war led to
congressional scrutiny of the Hollywood-military relationship for production of such
films as Devil Dogs of the Air and Sergeant York.

Wings (Army Air Corps, 1927 – full support)

Wings, which premiered on August 12, 1927, was the first motion picture to win
the Academy Award for Best Picture. It also received more military assistance than any

11
Suid, Lawrence (2002). Guts and Glory: The Making of the American Military Image. The University
Press of Kentucky. pg. 20.
12

other combat-related film before it.
12
Although approval processes are different today
than they were 80 years ago, Wings embodies the qualities that the military looks for
when deciding to support a film production. John Monk Saunders, the screenwriter,
highlighted those qualities when he said, “Suppose we present a really fine war picture, a
picture of historical significance, of national interest, of military importance. Suppose
the picture reflects the practice, spirit and tradition of American aims. Why wouldn’t the
War Department go hand-in-hand with us?”
13

In fact, after Saunders pitched the concept to the War Department, Secretary of
War Dwight F. Davis pledged support amounting to aircraft, pilots, balloons, tanks,
artillery, trucks, troops and even high explosives – more than $16 million in military
assets.
14
Saunders claimed that the merits of the film itself were the reason for support;
however, there were other important reasons.
Four important men all interceded in the decision-making process: Will Hays, the
first president of the Motion Picture Producers and Distributors of America, Maj. Gen.
Charles McKinley Saltzman, the Chief Signal Officer of the Army, Maj. Gen. John
Hines, Chief of Staff and Maj. Gen. Mason Patrick, Chief of the Air Corps.
15
Saunders
knew to whom he needed to speak and how to earn their support, and earning Saltzman’s
support was critical since the chief signal officer approved Army film participation at the
time. Support from the other three simply helped to facilitate the high level of support.

12
Suid, Lawrence (2002). Guts and Glory: The Making of the American Military Image. The University
Press of Kentucky. pg. 33.
13
Ibid.
14
Saunders, John Monk (1927, Jul. 31). The New York Times. The War in the Air: The Government
Cooperated to Make Wings Thrilling and True.
15
Suid, Lawrence (2002). Guts and Glory: The Making of the American Military Image. The University
Press of Kentucky. pg. 33.
13

The fact that the director chosen for the project, William Wellman, was a World
War I veteran aviator also likely contributed to military support. Although he was under
no obligation to cater to the military, he understood the military structure and was able to
navigate military politics efficiently. In fact, many of the Air Corps officers knew him
from his days as a military aviator.
16

Even with all of the military assistance and goodwill, the filming of the movie
proved to be quite difficult. During filming, two aircraft crashed and the Army Air Corps
told Wellman that if one more crashed, the military would withdraw its support.
Fortunately, the film was finished without the military pulling its assistance, even though
one pilot died in a crash during the filming. Paramount Pictures paid his parents the sum
of $10,000 in compensation.
17

The Patent Leather Kid (Army, 1927 – full support)

Not all films during the post WWI period received such extensive military support
as Wings. The Patent Leather Kid, released three days after Wings, also received full
military support. Because of filming locations chosen by the producer, the Army was not
able to deliver the same level of support. The movie tells the story of a young boxer who
is drafted into the Army and sent to war where he matures into a heroic soldier.
Even though the script received praise from Maj. Gen. Charles Saltzman, he was
not willing to support all of the filmmakers’ requests. Producer A.L. Rockett of First

16
Suid, Lawrence (2002). Guts and Glory: The Making of the American Military Image. The University
Press of Kentucky. pg. 36.
17
Wellman, William Jr. (2006). The Man And His Wings. Praeger Publishing. pg. 131.
14

National Productions requested 25 tanks to be moved from Ft. Lewis, Washington to Los
Angeles for filming of the movie; however the Army was only able to provide eight.
Rockett also wanted to use 400 to 500 soldiers in German uniforms for a tank battle
scene.
18
Saltzman upheld an Army regulation prohibiting U.S. soldiers from wearing
uniforms of any foreign nation, and Rockett received none.
More significant than the regulation issue, however, was a provision that the
military could not directly compete with civilian labor, and according to the Army’s
adjutant general, civilians could easily serve in the role that the filmmakers desired for
this particular scene since they were not performing any technical tasks, but were instead
needed for background effect. Even today, this is a criterion that the military considers
when agreeing to grant or deny assistance to a film project. Ultimately, the Army did
benefit from the completed film, even though it was not a box office hit, because it
accurately depicted WWI tank warfare and showed how Army service matured the main
character into an honorable soldier.
19

Submarine (Navy, 1928 – full support)

As with both Wings and The Patent Leather Kid, the 1928 movie Submarine
received military support because the leaders thought that it would benefit recruiting and
educate the American public about its military, specifically the Navy. Instead of looking
back at World War I, Submarine looked forward to the peacetime military. Recruiting

18
Suid, Lawrence (2002). Guts and Glory: The Making of the American Military Image. The University
Press of Kentucky. pg. 41.
19
Ibid.
15
was very important to the armed forces during the interwar years. Although all men were
still required to serve, each branch wanted to attract the very best to their own particular
service.
The recruiting and educational benefits did not come without some risk for the
Navy, however. The Frank Capra film had little to do with life on a submarine, and
instead focused on the disintegration and regeneration of a friendship between two men
due to a woman – a story that could be told in almost any setting. Capra had a penchant
for the military (later directing the military’s Why We Fight series) and was able to
convey a benefit to the Navy by showing a climatic submarine rescue.
From the Navy’s perspective, the film portrays a submarine that sinks, trapping its
men. This doesn’t necessarily translate to a great recruiting pitch. In addition, when a
vessel sinks, unless it is due to enemy bombardment, it is the fault of the captain. Again,
this is not a message the Navy might want to highlight. Capra, however, injected an
overarching message into the scenario – that if a submarine did sink, the Navy had the
capability to save its men. While the military did not particularly enjoy highlighting the
fact that a submarine could sink, it acknowledged the possibility and through its
assistance on the film, demonstrated that the men on the submarine would not necessarily
be doomed to death if the vessel sunk.
Capra’s ability to weave a high seas rescue into a love-triangle story enhanced the
quality of the film. One reviewer from the New York Times described the final scenes as
“a realistic conception of the horrors aboard a sunken submersible.” Although the
reviewer also admitted some technical lapses and “stretched out” suspense sequences,
16

Capra was nevertheless able to enhance his film by finding a clever way to gain military
assistance.
20

Devil Dogs of the Air (Marine Corps, 1935 – full support)

Devil Dogs of the Air is a “two guys fighting over one woman” comedy that
premiered in February 1935 and highlighted Marine Corps aviation. It featured
superstars of the day James Cagney and Pat O’Brien as Marine aviators who both try to
win the attention of a beautiful young woman (Margaret Lindsay). For production of the
film, the Navy provided access to the North Island Naval Air Station in San Diego, Calif.
as well as sailors, aviators and a squadron of aircraft.
At this time, the Navy approved assistance to any films involving the Marine
Corps. Therefore, when Senator Elbert Thomas from Utah, a member of the foreign
relations committee inquired about military assistance given to the movie, Navy
Secretary Claude Swanson responded. He explained that cooperation was given only in
“rare cases” when the screenplay depicted life in the Navy. He said that the Navy and
Marines assisted only in special scenes and allowed filming of some routine exercises.
Swanson went on to say that the he “believed that the benefits derived by the Navy in
having appropriate scenes of Naval life presented to the public in good pictures more than
compensates for the amount of work involved.”
21
He also noted that the Navy restricted

20
Hall, Mordaunt (1928, Aug. 31). The New York Times. Movie Review – Submarine. Retrieved Sept. 23,
2008 from
http://movies.nytimes.com/movie/review?res=9B03E3DE163FE33ABC4950DFBE668383639EDE
21
Suid, Lawrence (2002). Guts and Glory: The Making of the American Military Image. The University
Press of Kentucky. pg. 54.
17

filming of military scenes to those the studio could not otherwise recreate in order to limit
the loss to civilian employment.

Sergeant York (Army, 1941 – courtesy support)

Sergeant York tells the story of WWI Medal of Honor winner Alvin York. It is
one of several “preparedness films” released prior to and during 1941 that became the
subject of investigation by Senate isolationists Gerald Nye and Champ Clerk. Nye
accused Hollywood of producing “at least twenty pictures in the last year designed to
drug the reason of the American people, set aflame their emotions, turn their hatred into a
blaze, fill them with fear that Hitler will come over here and capture them.”
22

The isolationists ultimately convened a hearing of the subcommittee of the
Committee on Interstate Commerce in September 1941 to investigate whether movie
studios intentionally injected propaganda into their films. The president of Warner
Brothers, whose studio produced Sergeant York, denied Senator Nye’s claim that
Sergeant York was created to stimulate war hysteria saying that the movie was “a factual
portrait of the life of one of the great war heroes of the last war. If that is propaganda, we
plead guilty.” In fact, the three Warner brothers, who were sons of Polish immigrants,
were very committed to the security of the U.S. and saw their military glorification
movies as repayment for the opportunities they had found in America.
23
Regardless,
Sergeant York represents a trend in military movies prior to the outbreak of U.S.

22
Digital History website. Retrieved Sept. 22, 2008 from
http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/modules/ww2/wartimehollywood.html
23
Suid, Lawrence (2002). Guts and Glory: The Making of the American Military Image. The University
Press of Kentucky. pg. 50.
18

involvement in World War II that communicated that the United States could get
involved with the war, and that it was quite prepared to fight.
The Army provided only limited assistance to the film, partially because the
director, Howard Hawks, was able to find locations to shoot military-related scenes away
from military bases. Hawks actually cleared an 80-acre site, painting tree trunks black
and dynamiting the land to re-create a realistic World War I battle site.
24
The Army did
provide full assistance to six other films during 1941, and likely would have provided full
assistance to Sergeant York if asked. Records are scarce, but it appears Warner Brothers
did not ask simply because the producers were able to re-create the battle scenes and
other settings without the Army’s assistance. In addition, they were in direct
communication with Alvin York, who could provide much of the technical advice they
might have required.

WWII Period (December 1941-1945)

With the December 7, 1941 attack on Pearl Harbor, all criticism directed toward
the Hollywood-military relationship faded. Capitalizing on American patriotism,
filmmakers sought to work with the military to communicate that the United States would
be victorious in combat. As the war waged on, however, government officials realized
that the future threat would not come from the Axis powers, but instead from the Soviet
Union, and they began attempts to soften negative depictions of the enemy. After the

24
Toplin, Robert Brent (1996). History by Hollywood. University of Illinois Press. Chicago. pg. 93.
19

war, efforts to deconstruct the evil images of the German and Japanese began in earnest.
These efforts affected the film industry to a certain extent as well.

Air Force (Air Force, Marines, 1943 – full support)

Air Force, produced in 1943, serves as an example of how Hollywood made
movies that would communicate victory while the war was still in progress. The movie
follows one B-17 bomber crew as they depart California on a routine training flight to
Hawaii. They learn of the attack on Pearl Harbor just before their arrival there. They
then continue across the Pacific to the Battle of Wake Island, then to the Philippines and
finally to the Battle of the Coral Sea, a major operational and strategic defeat for the
Japanese.
25
Along the way, of course, they dispose of many Japanese aircraft. The film
characterizes Japanese as deceitful and refers to them in derogatory terms throughout. It
also portrays the Japanese as inferior in fair combat, sending the message that the United
States will certainly prevail.
After receiving the script in May 1942, the military’s Pictorial Branch quickly
approved assistance to the film’s production, and asked the Special Service Branch “to
return the script with comments within 24 hours because the film was a special Air Corps
recruiting job.”
26
The Review Branch made only minor security-related requests, and
full support of men, aircraft and other equipment was made available to Warner Brothers

25
Naval Historical Center webpage. Battle of the Coral Sea, 7-8 May 1942 -- Overview and Special Image
Selection. Retrieved Sept. 5 from http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/events/wwii-
pac/coralsea/coralsea.htm.
26
Suid, Lawrence (2002). Guts and Glory: The Making of the American Military Image. The University
Press of Kentucky. pg. 68.
20
st

for the movie’s production. Air Force subsequently became one of Hollywood’s greate
successes in building public morale. Hollywood would continue to focus on maintaining
morale. But, as the war progressed, the tone of movies would change.

Thirty Seconds Over Tokyo (Air Force, Navy, 1944 – full support)

Thirty Seconds Over Tokyo, released in November, 1944, tells the story of Jimmy
Doolittle’s famous raid over the Japanese mainland following the attack on Pearl Harbor.
The objective of the movie was to establish China as a powerful U.S. ally, showing
Chiang Kai-Shek loyalists rescuing U.S. pilots who landed in China. In actuality,
Chinese communist guerillas rescued the pilots, but the screenwriter, Dalton Trumbo,
decided not to highlight this fact.
27

More important, however, the film served as an example of late World War II
movies that limited the display of Japanese and German atrocities and showed how
government decisions could influence popular culture. Interestingly, in November 1943
the War Department issued the “atrocity directive,” which prohibited the depiction of
heinous acts committed by Axis powers. This was issued because both General Marshall
and President Roosevelt realized that the United States would have to rehabilitate the
images of the nation’s current enemies before the American public would accept them as
allies against the imminent spread of communism – a foreshadowing of the Cold War to
come.
28
The directive immediately impacted filmmakers’ portrayals of Japanese and

27
Suid, Lawrence (2002). Guts and Glory: The Making of the American Military Image. The University
Press of Kentucky. pp. 82-83.
28
Ibid. pg. 78.
21

German characters. For example, in Thirty Seconds Over Tokyo, none of the characters
mention enacting revenge against Japan for Pearl Harbor, even though the film is
supposed to take place just four months after the attack. Van Johnson, who portrays one
of the pilots in the movie, says, “My mother had a Jap gardener once. He seemed like a
nice little guy.” Robert Mitchum, who also stars in the movie, responds, “You know, I
don’t hate Japs yet. It’s a funny thing. I don’t like ‘em, but I don’t hate ‘em.”
29
While
these remarks might seem somewhat derogatory today, they were acceptable in 1944 and
served as a step taken to mitigate anti-Japanese sentiment.

Post WWII Period (1946-1949)

Following the end of hostilities, Hollywood understood that the American
public’s interest in war films would wane as it did during the period following WWI. In
fact, history shows that compared to the war years of 1941-1945, far fewer military films
were produced in the years 1946-1950. Not until the Korean conflict did military-
supported war film production start to increase again. Nevertheless, one of the most
influential war movies ever produced, John Wayne’s Sands of Iwo Jima, was released
during the post-war years. Especially as Cold War tensions rose, both the filmmakers and
the military knew that recruitment must be maintained, and each service sought to attract
the best to its ranks.

29
Suid, Lawrence (2002). Guts and Glory: The Making of the American Military Image. The University
Press of Kentucky. pg. 86.
22
Sands of Iwo Jima (Marine Corps, 1949 – full support)

While it is difficult to prove how much movies influence people to join the armed
services, history is full of vignettes. One such story comes from Ron Kovic, author of the
book Born on the Fourth of July, who says that he could not wait to enlist in the Marine
Corps after watching John Wayne in Sands of Iwo Jima.
30

The film, released in December 1949, tells the story of John Wayne as Sgt.
Stryker and his experiences in the Pacific theater from New Zealand to Tarawa to Iwo
Jima.
31
Stryker leads his men heroically, transforming himself throughout the film from
overbearing dictator to admired icon in the eyes of his fellow Marines. As the squad
pauses before reaching the summit of Mount Suribachi, where the Marines famously
raised the American flag, Stryker is shot by a Japanese sniper. Nevertheless, his well-
trained men continue their mission and charge on to victory.
This film demonstrates the Marine Corps’ determination to capitalize on the
movies to project its importance among the armed services to the American public.
32
For
the smallest of the armed services, this was an important objective, and from the earliest
days of motion pictures, the Marine Corps has consistently made appearances in film a
significant emphasis in its public relations operations, even at the expense of showing
characters who were imperfect. For example, Phil Strub of the DoD entertainment

30
Haverstick, Dolores A. and Suid, Lawrence (2005). Stars and Stripes on Screen. The Scarecrow Press.
pg. 205.
31
Ibid. pg. 204
32
Suid, Lawrence (2002). Guts and Glory: The Making of the American Military Image. The University
Press of Kentucky. pg. 117.
23

liaison office points out that John Wayne’s character, Sgt. Stryker, “was often drunk and
he depicted a brutal leadership style in the movie.”
33

Battleground (Army, 1949 – full support)

Like Sands of Iwo Jima, Battleground, a film focused on the siege of the Bastogne
during the Battle of the Bulge, was produced only five years after the end of the war.
Producer Dore Schary felt that it was imperative to make a film about World War II to
prevent the same sense of disillusionment that burdened the country following World
War I. To Schary, it was important to demonstrate that the war was “worth the fighting
despite the terrible losses.” He believed:
The men were not suckers. That they had not been used. There was something at
stake. It was the first time, in a long, long time, hundreds of years, that there had
been a real danger of a takeover by a very evil and strong force.

The Army agreed and supported the project from the beginning. General
McAuliffe, who commanded the 101
st
Airborne during the Battle of the Bulge, served as
the technical advisor during the script writing and recommended Lt. Col. W.O. Kinnard,
who had served under him during the battle, to serve as the technical advisor during
production. The Army also provided tanks, trucks and other equipment as well as 20
Soldiers from the 101
st
Airborne to serve as film extras.
34

Even though the movie premiered just five years after the end of hostilities, it
became a box office hit and entertained audiences as well as educated them about the

33
Michaels, Jim (1990, Feb. 24). The San Diego Union-Tribune. Hollywood, military forge wary alliance.
Pg. A-1.
34
Suid, Lawrence (2002). Guts and Glory: The Making of the American Military Image. The University
Press of Kentucky. pg. 107.
24
Battle of the Bulge. Moreover, it may have helped prepare the American public for
emerging hostilities in another land far away – Korea.

Korean War Period (1950-1953)

The 1950s proved to be a paradoxical time for moviemakers. The political
climate, with “The Hollywood Ten’s” jailing in 1950 and McCarthyism at its height,
discouraged filmmakers from making any movie that might question their loyalty to the
country. However, notable authors such as Herman Wouk (The Caine Mutiny) and Irwin
Shaw (The Young Lions) began writing novels about topics that the military would have
preferred not to address, such as bigotry in the armed forces, or questionable decisions
made by commanders. These enormously popular novels attracted the attention of
filmmakers, and the military eventually provided assistance to movies made about both.
As in World War II, where the military provided full assistance to more than 75
feature films during the course of fighting, military leaders wanted to partner with the
film industry and re-create the symbiotic relationship for the Korean War years.
Unfortunately, there was not great interest in Hollywood to make movies about the
conflict, likely because of the Hollywood perception of the war as a police action rather
than a clearly defined fight between good and evil.
35

35
Suid, Lawrence (2002). Guts and Glory: The Making of the American Military Image. The University
Press of Kentucky. pg. 137.
25

One Minute to Zero (Army, Air Force, 1952 – full support)

The military rarely turns to Hollywood to ask the industry to support a film. One
Minute to Zero was an exception. Desperate to recreate the successes they had with
World War II feature films, Air Force officials decided to approach Howard Hughes and
RKO Pictures about making an airplane film highlighting the close air support the service
provided to troops on the ground.
The Air Force provided aircraft and the Army provided soldiers and equipment
from the 148
th
Field Artillery Battalion for filming at Camp Carson, Colorado where a
small Korean village was replicated.
36
After production was complete, however, the
Army refused to approve the film because of a climatic scene in which Robert Mitchum,
as Colonel Steve Janowski, orders his men to fire upon a group of refugees interspersed
with North Korean soldiers. While the scene depicted a situation that fell within the rules
of engagement, the Army did not want to be seen as associated with a film that showed
soldiers killing innocent civilians. When Hughes determined that the Department of
Defense would not revoke his military contracts, he decided to leave the scene intact and
simply removed the traditional acknowledgement of military assistance in the credits.
37

36
Author unknown (2002, March). Pass in Review – The Idaho Military Historical Society Magazine.
Korean Conflict’s 50
th
Anniversary. Retrieved Sept. 6 from
http://museum.mil.idaho.gov/Newsletter/1stQtr2002.htm
37
Suid, Lawrence (2002). Guts and Glory: The Making of the American Military Image. The University
Press of Kentucky. pg. 138.
26

From Here to Eternity (Army, 1953 – full support)

From Here to Eternity is an example of a movie that the Army would have
preferred not to have been made, even though the service ultimately provided full
assistance. The story, based on James Jones’ best-selling novel, is a soap opera of epic
proportions, depicting a corrupt officer, brutality in the stockade and an adulterous
sergeant sleeping with his commander’s wife.
The Department of Defense’s reply after reading the initial treatment was:

The basic ingredients of accuracy and authenticity, [of] value to the public
information programs of the Department of Defense and the Army, and overall
benefit to National Defense, are not apparent in the Columbia proposal. The
treatment portrays situations which, even of they ever did exist, were certainly not
typical of the Army that most of us know, and could only serve to reflect discredit
on the entire service.
38

The screenwriter, Daniel Taradash, stubbornly continued to develop the script.
Columbia hired Jones to soften the script so that the military would support it. Taradash
himself anticipated military objections and either changed or removed scenes that might
be offensive while keeping true to the original novel as much as possible. When
Columbia brought the script back to the military for review, however, it was met with
nearly the same reaction as before. Although some officials believed the screenplay was
somewhat less objectionable than the previous versions, they said it still did not qualify
for support.
39

Don Baruch, the director of the newly created (in 1949) Motion Picture
Production Office, felt differently about the screenplay. He believed that since Columbia

38
Suid, Lawrence (2002). Guts and Glory: The Making of the American Military Image. The University
Press of Kentucky. pg. 146.
39
Ibid.
27

had committed to making the film with or without military assistance, it would be in the
best interest of the military to work with the studio to remove or sanitize some of the
most objectionable parts of the script. The Army’s deputy chief of information, Brig.
Gen. Frank Dorn, agreed with Baruch’s tactic. This sparked the debate that continues
today about whether to provide support to a film that does not necessarily show the
military in a positive light. Clayton Fritchey, then director of the Office of Public
Information, wrote to the Army’s Chief of Public Affairs, Maj. Gen Floyd Parks:
It has always seemed to me that our purpose in cooperating with commercial film
companies has been to portray the armed services, their personnel, officers,
training, ideals, aims and goals with the general intent of informing the public, of
increasing morale among military personnel, and perhaps to aid recruiting.
From Here to Eternity would obtain none of the above-mentioned results.
40

Still, Baruch maintained that by supporting the film, the military benefited
because it was able to exert some leverage to get the screenplay revised and “make it less
objectionable or more presentable.”
41
The filmmakers eventually softened the stockade
brutality so that it did not seem endemic, and they showed the corrupt officer being
forced to resign because of his actions.
From Here to Eternity would have lacked some authenticity, which arguably
contributed to its critical acclaim (winning eight Oscars), had the military chosen to not
support the film. But, the filmmakers would have likely depicted the military in a much
more derogatory fashion. Although the final production was not overly flattering for the
military, it at least portrayed the military in a better light than if no assistance had been
given.

40
Suid, Lawrence (2002). Guts and Glory: The Making of the American Military Image. The University
Press of Kentucky. pg. 146.
41
Ibid. pg. 147.
28
Cold War Period (1954-1964)

Although the Cold War with the Soviet Union started shortly after World War II
with events such as the Berlin Blockade, and continued with the Korean War in the early
1950s, it escalated during the mid to late 1950s and early 1960s, especially as the
American public became more concerned with the threat of nuclear war. Several of the
films that premiered after the close of the Korean War, such as On the Beach and Dr.
Strangelove, took on an anti-nuclear stance. In addition, Hollywood wanted to remind
audiences of times when the nation’s allies successfully stood against tyranny, and films
such as The Longest Day became popular.
Times were changing, though, and military cooperation with Hollywood was no
exception. The arrival of Arthur Sylvester as the Assistant Secretary of Defense for
Public Affairs signaled a new direction for the military’s policy toward Hollywood; it
would mark the beginning of a souring that would last for many years.

On the Beach (Navy, 1959 – courtesy assistance)

The film On the Beach serves as an example of how a filmmaker’s persistence
and influence can assist with obtaining access to senior military leaders, and thus
persuade the military to assist with a film that it might not otherwise support. However,
that persistence and influence might not ultimately gain the level of assistance the
filmmaker desires. The movie dramatized the consequences of nuclear holocaust, yet it
29
actually provided limited criticism of the U.S. military.
42
Nevertheless, the apocalyptic
film was initially denied any materiel assistance from the Department of Defense
because, in the words of Don Baruch, the film did not meet “the basic stipulation of
Defense policy that cooperation has to be in the best interest of national defense and the
public good.”
43

Producer/director Stanley Kramer, who had experience with gaining military
cooperation from his work on The Caine Mutiny, traveled to Washington, D.C. to meet
directly with defense officials and explain why it was in the best interest of the military to
support the film. To help bolster his argument, Kramer brought along retired Navy
Admiral Charles Lockwood, commander of the Submarine Force Pacific Fleet
(COMSUBPAC) during World War II, which likely was a key factor in getting the
Department of Defense to offer some informational support. In addition, Kramer
indicated his willingness to negotiate with the military about the content of the script,
which also contributed to a more favorable DoD reaction.
When the Navy Chief of Information, Admiral C.C. Kirkpatrick, later changed his
mind and determined that On the Beach should not receive any assistance, Kramer again
traveled to Washington to meet with the Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Arleigh
Burke. To gain military cooperation, Kramer promised to incorporate Burke’s
philosophy into the script. Burke believed that the film, which depicted a world ravaged
by a nuclear holocaust, would create “revulsion against the use of nuclear weapons of any
kind and a possible sense of defeatism with respect to the use of armed force as an

42
Suid, Lawrence (2002). Guts and Glory: The Making of the American Military Image. The University
Press of Kentucky. pg. 198.
43
Ibid. pg. 224.
30

instrument of national policy.” He continued that if this occurred, it could “seriously
reduce the resolution of the American public to take the risks at lower levels of conflict,
which their security demands.”
44
Burke also believed that the Navy should support the
film because of the effect it would have on the public and the fact that military support
gave the Department of Defense some voice in the script. He felt that it was important to
use that voice in the national interest.
Unfortunately, in the end, the Navy representatives did not believe the film
contributed to the national interest, perhaps because of the dark feelings communicated
throughout the film that time had run out for humankind. Even with Kramer’s attempt to
display some hope with a screen-filling banner prior to the closing credits stating, “It’s
not too late…Brother,” the Navy requested that Kramer not credit it with providing any
cooperation. In fact, the only assistance the Navy really provided was some stock
footage, photographs for set-building purposes and permission to film a submarine
traveling under the Golden Gate Bridge. The military did send a submarine, the U.S.S.
Segundo to Australia for filming purposes, but it arrived too late and thus was not used in
the film.
45
Nevertheless, Kramer’s ability to obtain an audience with key naval leaders
undoubtedly led to assistance that actually amounted to more than what traditional
courtesy assistance entails. This tactic is one that future filmmakers would use to obtain
assistance for their films.

44
Suid, Lawrence (2002). Guts and Glory: The Making of the American Military Image. The University
Press of Kentucky. pg. 226.
45
Ibid. pg. 227.
31

The Longest Day (Army, Navy, Marines, 1962 – full support)

Many people believe that the Vietnam War was the primary reason the military
began to question assistance provided to filmmakers. In fact, the movie The Longest Day
really provided the fodder for the end of the loose relationship between the military and
Hollywood. On the surface, the movie seems like a grand tribute to the military;
producer Darryl Zanuck said that he wanted it “to serve as a reminder to millions and
millions of people that the Allies, who once stood together and defeated an evil because
they stood together, can do so again in a different situation today.”
46

The problems arose, however, when Congress began to express objections to the
military providing assistance to Hollywood. The catalyst to this was the decesion by
NBC’s Tonight Show star Jack Paar to travel to Germany to provide on-the-spot
coverage during the Berlin Crisis on September 7, 1961. Army officials, in an effort to
be accomodating, allowed Paar to film what they called “a changeover in units” during
his show. They also allowed Paar to interview many members of the 6
th
Infantry Division
who were stationed nearby.
47
Reactions from Congress were swift. Among them,
Senator Clifford Case stated that “the practice of making facilities of the defense
establishment available for any private ownership, for commercialization and commercial
profit, is one to be examined, and should be permitted only in a situation in which their

46
Suid, Lawrence (2002). Guts and Glory: The Making of the American Military Image. The University
Press of Kentucky. pg. 172.
47
Trivia-Library.com website. History of Shows and Major Events in Television in the 1960s Part 1.
Retrieved Sept 9, 2008 from http://www.trivia-library.com/a/history-of-shows-and-major-events-in-
television-in-the-1960s-part-1.htm.
32

use would not in any way endanger the security of the United States.”
48
Clearly, he felt
that Paar’s show had possibly damaged the delicate balance of relations between the U.S.
and the U.S.S.R.
Because of the current military assistance being provided to the film The Longest
Day, and some of the normal disagreements inherent with negotiations, it became a target
of attention as well. The new Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs, Arthur
Sylvester, determined that it was time to re-write the 1954 rulebook for how the military
should provide cooperation to the Hollywood establishment and, as a result of his
increased oversight, filmmakers started to avoid going to the military to request
assistance.
49
Sylvester’s rules, however, actually had very little effect on the way the
military provided support, and they changed the 1954 version very little. What did
change was the way that the film industry viewed the military – and it was for the
negative.
Sylvester’s criteria reinforced that filmmakers would need to ensure safety for
servicemembers working on films and required that assistance must not interfere with
“operational readiness of the armed forces.”
50
In addition, he strictly enforced a long-
standing requirement that cooperation would be provided at no expense to the
government. In fact, Zanuck was required to pay $300,000 for the use of 250 soldiers
during filming of The Longest Day.
51

48
Suid, Lawrence (2002). Guts and Glory: The Making of the American Military Image. The University
Press of Kentucky. pg. 181.
49
Ibid. pg. 189.
50
Ibid. pg. 190.
51
Ibid. pg. 182.
33
l
ocations.

With all of the hassle, The Longest Day did become a box office hit and was
nominated for five Oscars including best picture. It won two, best cinematography and
best special effects.
52
Undoubtedly, the military assistance offered to the film
contributed to these awards since it is unlikely Zanuck could have created the same leve
of special effects and cinematography without access to military hardware and l

Vietnam Period (1965-1975)

At the beginning of the Vietnam War, most Americans still held the military in
high regard. However, as the war progressed, that image faded. Author David
Halberstam wrote that Americans no longer universally perceived themselves as the good
guys in the struggle and that the war offered no easy way out for the U.S. It had become
too complex and impersonal for pat solutions.
53

Military assistance to feature films significantly scaled back as well. Although
the trend began following the questioned assistance provided to Darryl Zanuck’s The
Longest Day and the nearly simultaneous entrance of Sylvester, the Vietnam War
cemented it. Compared to the more than 75 films that received full assistance during
World War II (1941-1945), the Vietnam War years (1965-1975) produced only a dozen
fully supported films in double the timespan! Interestingly, the Marine Corps provided
assistance to almost half (five) of the fully supported films during the Vietnam era.

52
IMDB webpage. Retrieved Sept. 10, 2008 from http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0056197/awards.
53
Suid, Lawrence (2002). Guts and Glory: The Making of the American Military Image. The University
Press of Kentucky. pg. 255.
34
This does not mean that military films were not produced, though. In fact, more
than 90 films were made that involved the military, and the military gave courtesy
assistance to about 30, but filmmakers simply did not request cooperation almost half of
the time. This may suggest that there was a growing mistrust brewing between
filmmakers and the military, and indeed the new 1964 regulations made it more difficult
to obtain military assistance. It could also suggest that filmmakers knew that the military
could not provide men or equipment very readily during this time. No men, because they
were engaged in combat, but no equipment for a slightly different reason. Almost half of
the movies developed during the Vietnam era were not about Vietnam, but instead,
World War II. Only about a dozen movies of the more than 90 made during the ten-year
span of 1965-1975 focused on Vietnam. Consequently, the U.S. military simply did not
have vintage World War II equipment on hand, and the filmmakers realized it, so they
did not request any assistance.

The Green Berets (1968, Army – full support)

John Wayne’s portrayal of Col. Mike Kirby in The Green Berets serves as an
inspiration to many who see the film as a tribute to the Special Forces soldiers who did
the best job they could in a war with few redeeming qualities. However, the film also
became a target for critics who felt that it was a propaganda tool for the U.S.
government’s policies and that military assistance contributed to this propaganda.
David Robb, in his book Operation Hollywood, cites Congressman Benjamin
Rosenthal’s concerns that the film received considerable “military equipment and
35

manpower” and that it was clear to him that “defense appropriations were used to assist
that film’s producer.”
54
In fact, the military did stretch the regulations somewhat to assist
with the film’s production. For example, a platoon-sized group of soldiers of Hawaiian
descent from Ft. Devons, Massachusetts was placed on administrative leave so that they
could travel to Ft. Benning, Georgia to serve as “Vietnamese” extras in the film.
55
Don
Baruch realized this and after viewing the final cut, wrote in a hand-written note:
“Conferred with Michael Wayne regarding not using DoD credit because (1) ‘propaganda
value of film’ might be affected by the association, (2) might increase letters of inquiry
on how film received assistance.”
Despite this, the producer was required to pay about $18,000 for use of
helicopters and other equipment. A GAO report conducted at the request of Congress
found that the Army actually did not break any rules while providing support.
Nevertheless, the popular belief that the film served the government as a propaganda tool
stuck.

Limbo (1972, Air Force – denied full support)

Limbo tells the story of three women whose husbands are either prisoners of war
or missing in action during the Vietnam War. It focuses on the trials and tribulations that
the wives must endure, both with the military and with their own feelings. Each of the
women come from different backgrounds with different perspectives. One is a devout

54
Robb, David L. (2004). Operation Hollywood. Prometheus Books. pp. 278-279.
55
Suid, Lawrence (2002). Guts and Glory: The Making of the American Military Image. The University
Press of Kentucky. pg. 252.
36

Catholic who struggles to raise her four children alone, another is a wealthy “Southern
belle” who supports the war despite the fact her husband is missing-in-action. The last is
a beautiful young woman who married her husband just two weeks before his departure.
She ends up falling in love with another man and has an affair even as her husband
suffers in captivity.
Initially, the military provided courtesy support to the filmmakers; however, the
fact that the script highlighted an unfaithful wife and that the war was still raging
prevented the military from granting any materiel support. In the eyes of the Pentagon,
further military assistance to the film may have exacerbated North Vietnamese
propaganda efforts to demoralize U.S. prisoners of war because of its apparent complicity
in making a film depicting an adulterous wife. The military acknowledged that some
miitary wives were unfaithful, but officials charged that the film did not portray a
balanced perspective. In fact, the film actually did take an even-handed approach,
depicting only one of the three women as adulterous.
56
Nevertheless, it was deemed the
best decision for the military to not support the film on the grounds that it was not in the
national interest to show any infidelity during such a stressful time for the many military
wives who had to struggle with the fact that their husbands were either missing in action
or serving as prisoners of war. Bernard Donnenfeld, president of the production
company The Filmakers Group, which produced Limbo in conjunction with Universal
Studios, said that he could understand why the military did not grant support, stating:

56
Suid, Lawrence (2002). Guts and Glory: The Making of the American Military Image. The University
Press of Kentucky. pg. 318.
37

They may not have wanted to get involved in a very emotional picture that Limbo
was. It showed conflicts between the wives. Some were very pro-administration
and some were not, as it was in real life. It was a very volatile subject at the
time.
57

Post –Vietnam period (1976-1985)

Strain continued between Hollywood and the military following Vietnam. It was
also a time when the military struggled to figure out how to continue to support requests
for assistance. With anti-Vietnam and anti-war sentiment prevailing among many
Americans, the military began to realize that it could no longer hope for scripts like the
ones it so commonly received in the 1940s and 1950s.
With films such as The Deer Hunter and Coming Home becoming popular hits,
the military considered negotiating with filmmakers even if they approached the military
with an anti-war message. This new approach, first adopted by the Marine Corps, put its
stock in the belief that films could now look and feel realistic without military support,
especially if they told a human-interest story not focused on equipment or location.
Unless the military engaged with filmmakers, there would be no hope of accuracy or
improved image. Military officials began to realize that if they did not talk to those with
dissenting perspectives, then the only viewpoint communicated would be of the
dissenters. The transformation took many years and was not smooth, but slowly, the
military regained its depiction as an honored profession, and the movies of the post-
Vietnam period contributed to the rebuilding of that image.

57
Suid, Lawrence (2002). Guts and Glory: The Making of the American Military Image. The University
Press of Kentucky. pg. 319.
38
Go Tell the Spartans (Army, 1978 – denied full support)

Although the DoD public affairs office advised the Army that the script depicted
the most positive portrayal of the Vietnam War to request military assistance, the Army
still found multiple objectionable elements.
58
Based on Daniel Ford’s 1967 novel,
Incident at Muc Wa, the story is set in 1964 and tells about the early days of U.S. military
advisors in Vietnam.
Ford, who spent time in Vietnam with a Special Forces “A” team, spoke about the
transition of the storyline from real life to book to screenplay, which uncovers Army
reasoning for non-support. He said of the men he encountered in Vietnam:
They were good soldiers and decent men, as were virtually all the Americans I
met in Vietnam. As they made the transition from life to novel to movie,
however, an interesting and perhaps significant change took place in them. The
characters in Incident at Muc Wa – written a year after Operation Blaze – were at
once more clownish and more brutal than their real-life counterparts, as if good
heartedness were no longer an acceptable currency in Southeast Asia. By the time
they appeared in Wendell Mayes's screenplay for Go Tell the Spartans, these men
were even less admirable. My battle-wise Sergeant Oleonowski had become a
battle-weary drunk; an opium-smoking medic was added to the team. A general
weariness afflicted nearly everyone at the cinematic Muc Wa, and almost to a
man they cursed and grunted whenever they were on camera.
59

Additionally, Army public affairs officers objected to the script’s reference to
draftees in country (since in 1964, only volunteers served in Vietnam), depictions of

58
Haverstick, Dolores A. and Suid, Lawrence (2005). Stars and Stripes on Screen. The Scarecrow Press.
pg. 94.
59
Ford, Daniel. The Warbird Forum webpage. From life to novel to film. Retrieved Sept. 14, 2008 from
http://www.warbirdforum.com/movie.htm
39

Vietnamese allies torturing prisoners, and to the age of Burt Lancaster (in his mid-sixties
at the time, older than most general officers), who portrayed an Army major.
60

Nevertheless, the problems likely could have been negotiated to a settlement,
since the filmmakers did want military assistance and the problems that the Army
identified were mostly matters of procedure and accuracy instead of overall storyline
objections, such as with Apocalypse Now. Unfortunately, the producer, Allan Bodoh, an
independent producer, did not know how the military-Hollywood relationship worked.
When he received his initial turndown from the DoD office, he decided to go straight to
the Army and encountered similar resistance. Frustrated, he walked out and decided to
make the film on his own. Had he been more persistent with the DoD office, he might
have been able to work through the objectionable material and gained military assistance.
Instead, he had to settle for filming in Valencia, California within sight of the Magic
Mountain theme park. In fact, the director had to take care not to show images of the one
of the park’s rollercoaster in the background during filming.
61

Hair (Army, 1979 – full support)

Despite the pro-hippie culture and anti-war message in the film re-creation of the
popular Broadway hit, Hair, the Army ultimately provided 300 men, and access to a
National Guard base for filming as well as multiple trips to active duty bases for the
filmmakers to conduct research. Army officials also despised the overall message within

60
Haverstick, Dolores A. and Suid, Lawrence (2005). Stars and Stripes on Screen. The Scarecrow Press.
pg. 94.
61
Ibid.
40

the script, and initially denied assistance repeatedly; however, producer Lester Persky
would not take ‘no’ for an answer. Unlike Allan Bodoh in the film Go Tell the Spartans,
Persky worked directly with the DoD office and Don Baruch, diligently making changes
requested by the military without destroying the integrity of the original screenplay.
The film is an adaptation of the Broadway musical, telling the story of a Vietnam
draftee, Claude, who travels to New York prior to his entrance into the Army. While
there, he befriends a group of hippies and falls in love with one of the hippie girls, Sheila.
The friendship is interrupted when Claude must depart for basic training in Nevada. The
group travels to Nevada to see Claude one last time and they concoct a plan for him to
visit with Sheila before his Vietnam departure. One of the hippies, George, stands in for
him so he can spend time with Sheila, but a base alert traps George, who must now ship
of to Vietnam in Claude’s place. While in Vietnam, George is killed.
62

Because Persky persisted through multiple denials of assistance, he was
eventually able to persuade the Army to send a telegram to California governor Jerry
Brown stating that the Army “would find it appropriate if the California National Guard
chose to cooperate with the filming of Hair.”
63
Maj. Gen. Frank Schober Jr., the
California Adjutant General, agreed to provide men (in an off-duty status) and equipment
for filming. He believed that cooperation would in fact serve the best interest of the
military because failure to support would result in a more antimilitary movie if the Army
did not provide any assistance.
64

62
IMDB webpage. Retrieved Sept 14, 2008 from http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0079261/synopsis.
63
Suid, Lawrence (2002). Guts and Glory: The Making of the American Military Image. The University
Press of Kentucky. pp. 363-364.
64
Ibid.
41

Coming Home (Marines, 1978 – denied any support)

Coming Home, loosely adapted from George Davis’ 1972 novel of the same
name, is an anti-war love triangle story set in the Vietnam era. “Gung-ho” Marine
Captain Bob Hyde goes to the Vietnam War seeking the “Olympic Games” but finds only
emptiness. Paraplegic Vietnam veteran Luke Martin comes home from the war enraged
and starkly ‘anti-war,’ and Hyde’s wife, Sally, leaves her husband and finds idealistic and
sexual revelations in Martin.
65

Producer Jerome Hellman approached the Marine Corps for assistance, however
the service denied any cooperation on the basis that the movie would “reflect unfavorably
on the image of the Marine Corps.”
66
In addition to the overt anti-war image, the Marine
Corps office objected to the script’s reference to drug use by Marines and war-crime
descriptions.
The movie, which won Oscars for Best Actor, Best Actress and Best Screenplay,
is significant because Marine officials suddenly realized that filmmakers could make
critically acclaimed films without military assistance. The film caused them to
“reevaluate” their policies on whether they should engage with filmmakers with anti-
military themes or simply deny their requests for assistance.
67
Instead of denying a script
outright, Marine officials determined that they should be willing to negotiate with any
filmmaker who requested assistance. The difference was not so much about changing
what might be acceptable and not acceptable; it was more about deciding to work with

65
Kroll, Jack (1978, Feb. 20). Newsweek. Vietnam Hero Worship. pg. 87.
66
Suid, Lawrence (2002). Guts and Glory: The Making of the American Military Image. The University
Press of Kentucky. pg. 328.
67
Ibid. pg. 329.
42
filmmakers to educate them about how Marines truly behave. Filmmakers could take the
suggestions or not, but it was evident to the Marines that it was more important to engage
rather than ignore or shut out earnest requests.

The Great Santini (Marines, 1979 – full support)

The Great Santini offered the Marine Corps an opportunity to showcase their new
policy. Based on the popular Pat Conroy novel of the same name, the film depicted Bull
Meechum, played by Robert Duvall, as a macho Marine fighter pilot who loved the Corps
more than anything else. Problems arose, however, because the screenplay told the story
of his life through the eyes of his family, and in the original script, Meechum was
depicted as an abusive husband and father who wasn’t able to recognize the difference
between the orders he gave to his men and the orders he gave to his family. In addition,
the original script showed Meechum as disrespectful to Navy personnel, and the Navy, as
the senior service to the Marine Corps, did not take kindly to this.
With the Marine Corps embracing the new policy and the Navy holding to the
traditional policy, the screenplay provided a collision of ideologies between the services.
As a result of derogatory depictions of Navy personnel, Navy Chief of Information, Rear
Admiral David Cooney said that the script did not meet the criteria to merit DoD support.
The Marine director of information, Brig Gen. V.T. Blaz, initially agreed with him;
however, he did believe that the film company would make the movie with or without
military assistance and denial of cooperation would “preclude any ability to influence the
43

production.”
68
After the filmmakers visited Marine Corps Air Station in Beaufort, South
Carolina, they realized how important cooperation would be to the authenticity of the
film, and indicated that they would be willing to negotiate with the military to obtain
official assistance. Marine officials decided that they wanted to work with the
filmmakers to reach a negotiated outcome beneficial to both parties.
Several objectionable scenes still remained in the script as far as Navy officials
were concerned, and they fell back on the initial recommendation that support be denied
to the filmmaker. As the senior service, with the Navy Chief of Information technically
outranking the Marine director of information, this presented a significant problem – and
challenge – for the Marine Corps. Disagreements continued between the services until
Brig. Gen. Margaret Brewer, the new Marine Corps director of information, in
coordination with Col. Art Brill, from the Marine Film Liaison office, devised a workable
solution. Marine Lt. Penny Williamson was directed to negotiate removal of
objectionable material from the script with the filmmakers. In exchange, for elimination
of most of the objectionable material, the Marines provided men, aircraft and other
equipment as well as access to the Beaufort Air Station for filming. They also gained
limited consent from the Navy provided that no screen credits be displayed
acknowledging military assistance, since not all of the objectionable material was
negotiated out.
69

This method became a new policy for the Marines: to provide assistance on a quid
pro quo basis, but not allow public acknowledgment in the screen credits if senior service

68
Suid, Lawrence (2002). Guts and Glory: The Making of the American Military Image. The University
Press of Kentucky. pg. 388.
69
Ibid. pp. 388-392.
44
officials objected to the final product. Through this policy, the Marines were able to
negotiate out elements of scripts that they found objectionable and maintain a more
positive image than if they simply ignored requests for assistance. Even though Marine
officials had long sought to influence society through the movies, this tactic of providing
assistance, but not publicly acknowledging it in screen credits allowed them to begin to
rebuild the floundering image that then-recent Hollywood films such as The Boys in
Company C and Coming Home had created.

An Officer and a Gentleman (Navy, Marines, 1982 – courtesy support)

If Coming Home was the turning point for the Marine Corps to a more open film
support policy, then An Officer and a Gentleman was the turning point for the Navy.
Although this film did not have an anti-war theme like Coming Home, it had scenes and
behavior that the Navy found reprehensible.
The story is about Zack Mayo, portrayed by Richard Gere, and his struggles and
triumphs during Navy flight school. It is a classic coming-of-age story in which Mayo
ultimately learns the lesson that in the military, he must be responsible for his own
actions and learn to rely on friends and colleagues for support. The script, however,
portrayed sex, alcohol and abuse as part of Mayo’s growth into an honorable Navy
aviator.
After reviewing the script, the Navy found that the sexually explicit content and
foul language depicted in various scenes were “profane and morally objectionable.” In
the eyes of the Navy, months of script revisions never brought about any redeemable
45

qualities, and Cmdr. Gordon Peterson, the Navy reviewer said, “Production assistance
offers no benefit to the service, rather, the portrayal would be damaging to the Navy and
to the recruiting effort.”
70

The Marine Corps saw the script differently. Maj. Pat Coulter from the Marine
Corps film liaison office didn’t see the sexually explicit scenes as a stumbling block for
support. Instead, he looked at the screenplay from a larger perspective and understood
that Paramount wanted to maintain the ‘R’ rating, and so was not willing to tone down
the sexual scenes. He also claimed that it would be in the best interest of the Marine
Corps to ensure that the drill instructor, played by Lou Gossett Jr., would behave
accurately and professionally. He arranged for the actor to spend two days with real drill
instructors and was able to transform Gossett’s perception of his character from a
”Neanderthal, knuckle dragging, son of a bitch” into “a teacher and coach” who
understood “the meaning of the words ‘firmness, fairness and dignity’ in the DI/recruit
relationship.”
71

Despite the Navy’s outright refusal to work with the film, Maj. Coulter continued
to provide technical assistance in an “unofficial” capacity for the Marine Corps. He
traveled to the set several times to ensure Gossett’s character was portrayed accurately
and was able to secure off-duty Marines to serve as extras, which also gave the film a
more authentic feel. Because Coulter’s only leverage was accuracy, as opposed to the
leverage that filming on a military installation creates, he was not able to convince the
director to remove all of the objectionable material from the script. Nevertheless, his

70
Robb, David L. (2004). Operation Hollywood. Prometheus Books. pg. 202.
71
Suid, Lawrence (2002). Guts and Glory: The Making of the American Military Image. The University
Press of Kentucky. pg. 489.
46
efforts demonstrated to the Navy that engagement with a filmmaker produced a far more
desirable product than otherwise, especially in the modern era where producers could
make a movie with or without military assistance, especially if it highlighted character
development rather than military equipment.

Desert Storm Period (1986-2001)

The 15 years of the Pre- and Post-Desert Storm periods, from 1986 to 2001,
marked a period of incredible technological advances within the film industry. Computer
generated imagery (CGI) suddenly became a resource, but not a substitute, for
filmmakers who could not gain official military assistance. With an array of films
depicting various military conflicts as well as the peacetime military, it also marked a
time when the military’s image in film was drastically improved compared to the Post-
Vietnam period. Beginning with Top Gun, the military enjoyed mostly positive audience
perceptions, and it is from this era that many of today’s military entertainment liaisons
draw their rationale for supporting or denying military cooperation.
In addition, the most recent edition of DoDI 5410.16 was drafted in January 1988.
Undeniably, the first four movies discussed in this section, Top Gun, Platoon, Full Metal
Jacket and Hamburger Hill, influenced that document and thus today’s policies
concerning military support for films.
Filmmakers also could afford to rely less on the military for technical guidance
with the emergence of prominent military technical advisors such as Dale Dye and Harry
Humphries for assistance on films denied military assistance such as Oliver Stone’s
47

Platoon and Ridley Scott’s G.I. Jane. Because filmmakers often hired private military
technical advisors even if they received military cooperation, DoD project officers’ roles
as technical advisors may have diminished during this time. Jim Dever, who first
provided technical assistance on the set of Clint Eastwood’s Heartbreak Ridge, believes
that today’s DoD project officers serve more as “script minders” rather than technical
advisors.
72
Sometimes a filmmaker needs military hardware, and movies such as Pearl
Harbor and Black Hawk Down benefited tremendously from the partnership, proving that
filmmakers will continue to need the military as much as the military needs filmmakers.

Top Gun (Navy, 1986 – full support)

Unlike An Officer and a Gentleman, Top Gun was a blockbuster film that could
not have been made as successfully without extensive military assistance. With the
requirement for high seas aircraft carrier and high-flying jet fighter scenes throughout,
Paramount could not have made the film credible without military cooperation. Producer
Don Simpson, who ran Paramount studios during the making of An Officer and a
Gentleman, learned from his experience there and used that experience to create a picture
the Navy would want to support.
The movie tells a variation of the old story of boy meets girl, boy loses girl, boy
wins girl back after learning about himself, set at both the Navy’s premier Top Gun
school in Miramar, California and on an aircraft carrier at sea. Tom Cruise, who plays
‘Maverick,’ is one of the top aviators in the Navy, but true to his call sign, he is a bit of a

72
Telephone interview with Jim Dever. Sept. 26, 2008.
48

rebel. While struggling through his triumphs and tribulations at the Top Gun school, he
meets Charlie, played by Kelly McGillis, who is a civilian instructor there, and falls in
love with her. Arrogance and other personal issues cause him to push her away, but his
compassion and a realization that he can’t make it alone – in any endeavor – bring him
back to her in the end.
Although producers Jerry Bruckheimer and Don Simpson sold the Navy on the
script from the very beginning, the Navy still used the leverage of its equipment to
influence its depiction in the movie. For example, scriptwriters changed Kelly McGillis’
character from a Naval officer into a civilian astrophysicist over Naval fraternization
concerns, and they eased the “hard drinking” characterization of Navy fighter pilots to
allay concerns of heightening a “work hard play harder” stereotype.
Despite any potential watering down allegations due to military influence, the PG
rated movie became the top grossing film of 1986. Paramount made the movie for
approximately $15 million, and $1.1 million went to the Navy for access to two aircraft
carriers, a military technical advisor, fighter pilots and their aircraft.
73
Garth Jowett, a
University of Houston professor who has studied the military's influence on media,
commented on the power of movies saying, “Top Gun’s success also reminded the
military that movies have a tremendous hold on the public's imagination.” In fact, many
people claimed that the movie actually boosted military recruiting, and that young men
signed up in droves to become fighter pilots just like Tom Cruise.
74
“The reaction was

73
Suid, Lawrence (2002). Guts and Glory: The Making of the American Military Image. The University
Press of Kentucky. p 501.
74
Crawley, James W. (2001, May 25) Copley News Service. Movies, military march in step.
49

unbelievable,” said an unidentified retired admiral. “I wouldn't say it changed the way
we do business with Hollywood, but it certainly made us want more of it.”
75

Platoon (Army, 1986 – denied support)

Despite an increased interest in engaging with filmmakers, not all blockbuster
movies received military assistance. Oliver Stone’s Platoon is one example of a film in
which the military and the filmmaker could not overcome differences in opinion to gain
military support. Platoon was the first major Vietnam-based movie to be made since
Apocalypse Now and Stone wanted to make it as realistic as possible by basing it on his
own experiences “with added dramatization.”
76
Stone had actually served for a year as
an infantryman in Vietnam with the 25
th
Infantry Division, so he had an authentic
background from which to draw, unlike many other Vietnam-era feature film directors.
The movie tells the story of Chris Taylor, played by Charlie Sheen, as a college
boy who volunteers for service in Vietnam. He is ridiculed upon arrival and quickly
realizes that his presence is not appreciated. His world is consumed by the actions of two
sergeants in his platoon: bad guy Sergeant Barnes, played by Tom Berenger, and the
good guy Sergeant Grodin, played by William Dafoe. The two sergeants clash over the
ethics of a massacre during a raid when Grodin reports Barnes for his devious actions.
On the next mission, Barnes shoots Grodin. As Taylor’s tour continues, his struggle to

75
Stewart, Jim (1990, Feb. 2). The Globe and Mail. There's no life like it when the cameras roll, Navy-
style.
76
Suid, Lawrence (2002). Guts and Glory: The Making of the American Military Image. The University
Press of Kentucky. pg. 503.
50

find meaning in the whole experience becomes a metaphor for the infantryman’s
presence on the ground in Vietnam.
Army representatives read the script and found several problems with it. Don
Baruch, the DoD entertainment liaison, relayed the message that the Army objected to
“the murder and rape of innocent Vietnamese villagers by U.S. soldiers, the cold-blooded
murder of one U.S. soldier by another, the stereotyping of black soldiers, and the
portrayal of the majority of soldiers as illiterate delinquents.”
77
These problems,
however, were not terribly different from the myriad problems the Army found in most
every first-draft script that was submitted to them. In fact, the Army also had rejected the
first draft of The Green Berets. Stone was outraged that the Army would dare to
intercede with his creative vision, and so did not more aggressively pursue military
assistance.

Full Metal Jacket (Marines, 1987 – support not requested)

Although Stanley Kubrick did not request U.S. military assistance for the film –
primarily because he shot the film in Great Britain – he did go to the British Ministry of
Defence for troops and helicopter support, but was denied.
78
The film serves as an
example of how filmmakers can create realistic depictions of military life and combat
without official military assistance.

77
Suid, Lawrence (2002). Guts and Glory: The Making of the American Military Image. The University
Press of Kentucky. pg. 503.
78
Hastings, Chris (2008, July 13). The Sunday Telegraph (London). Kubrick: a props odyssey. pg. 18.
51
The movie, based on the 1979 novel entitled The Short-Timers, is a two-part film,
where the first half depicts Gunnery Sgt. Hartman, a profane drill instructor who imposes
his will on young Marine recruits during boot camp. The second part of the film depicts
the Marines’ experiences in Vietnam during the Tet Offensive, focusing on their
reactions to becoming the “killers” Hartman created at Parris Island.
Although Kramer did not request assistance, he did contact the Marine Corps
liaison office for a good technical advisor. He spoke with Lt. Col. Fred Peck who
recommended Lee Ermey, a retired Marine drill instructor. Ermey, who had had brief
acting roles in other films such as Apocalypse Now and The Boys in Company C, actually
ended up portraying Gunnery Sgt. Hartman in the movie and was nominated for a Golden
Globe for his performance.
79

Hamburger Hill (Army, 1987 – full support)

Like Oliver Stone with Platoon, writer and Vietnam veteran Jim Carabatsos
wanted to create a depiction of what the average soldier experienced in Vietnam in
Hamburger Hill. However, unlike Stone, Carabatsos wanted to show what it was really
like and not use caricatures to tell his story. Carabatsos believed that caricatures were
dangerous. He said, “If you say it’s typical that in an American infantry platoon or squad

79
Suid, Lawrence (2002). Guts and Glory: The Making of the American Military Image. The University
Press of Kentucky. pg. 524.
52

a platoon sergeant kills his squad leader and a new guy kills the platoon sergeant…(then)
I’d say we should can the Army and close our borders.”
80

The first draft of the Hamburger Hill script, like Platoon, had many objectionable
elements that the Army requested be changed in exchange for support. The film tells the
story of the battle for Hill 937, which was dubbed Hamburger Hill by the men who
fought there. It received full military cooperation, even though the final draft of the
script contained some less-than-desirable and anti-war material. Because the filmmakers
were willing to negotiate with the Army, they were able to obtain assistance with
procurement of off-duty soldiers as extras and access to military equipment.
Likely because the film premiered after three other Vietnam-era movies: Platoon,
Full Metal Jacket and Hanoi Hilton, all within the span of about eight months, it did not
do particularly well at the box office. In the words of Ian Bryce, producer of Saving
Private Ryan, Tears of the Sun and Transformers, “subjects can be cyclical – too much of
anything can burn out an audience.”
81

A Few Good Men (Marines, 1992, courtesy assistance, denied full support)

Like The Great Santini, the movie A Few Good Men pitted the Navy and Marine
Corps against each other; however, this time, in a reversed role. Director Rob Reiner
actually relied on the inherent service rivalry to create tension, and his desire to highlight
it likely led to the decision of the Marines not to support production, even though the

80
Suid, Lawrence (2002). Guts and Glory: The Making of the American Military Image. The University
Press of Kentucky. pg. 529.
81
Author’s email interview with Ian Bryce. Sept. 16, 2008.
53
film’s ultimate message is that the military will identify those who break the rules and
bring them to justice.
The movie is about the trial of two young Marines who accidentally kill a weaker
fellow Marine during a “code red” where they beat him with soap bar stuffed pillowcases
while strapping him to his bed. This time, the Marine Corps appeared callous and
uncaring in the character of Col. Jessup, played by Jack Nicholson, who ultimately
admits to ordering the “code red” in the final climactic scene. Tom Cruise as Lt. Daniel
Kaffee, representing the Navy, becomes the savior who takes on “the code” and brings
justice to the Marine Corps’ blind adherence to it.
Had the Marine Corps decided to assist, they might have influenced the director to
ultimately portray Col. Jessup as realizing that he had committed a grave crime, but
instead, when convicted, he shouts, “What the hell is this?.....I did my job. I’d do it
again…” This depiction reflects poorly on the Marine Corps as indifferent to justice. Its
inclusion arguably could lead to future public assumptions that the Marine Corps holds
its code higher than the rule of law.
Perhaps the Marine Corps should have taken notes on the philosophy of former
Marine liaison Pat Coulter that it is better to engage with filmmakers than to deny
assistance because of a perception that assistance equals sanctioning of the project.
Furthermore, the Department of Defense, recognizing that this film would easily be
authentically made without military assistance since much of the dramatic action took
place in a court room, should have settled differences between the services concerning
providing assistance. The Navy did provide limited assistance to the movie by allowing
54

some filming at Naval Air Station Pt. Mugu in California.
82
Still, the film, even without
significant military assistance, reflected well on the military as a whole.

Forrest Gump (Army, 1994 – courtesy assistance, denied full support)

The Army ultimately decided not to provide full assistance to Forrest Gump.
Officials did, however, work with the producers to ensure policies and procedures were
reflected accurately. Ultimate assistance was not granted largely because of the inclusion
of two scenes. One depicted Tom Hanks, playing Forrest Gump, showing the president a
scar on his buttocks, effectively mooning the commander-in-chief. The other depicted
Gump unwittingly attending an anti-war demonstration in his uniform while wearing his
Medal of Honor.
83
Phil Strub, the head of the Pentagon’s film liaison office, said that he
did not push the Army to support the film because he figured that if there was any public
relations benefit to the picture, the Army would get it anyway, without lifting a finger.
84

The movie is about Forrest Gump, a pleasant young man with a lower than
average I.Q. The military portion of the film chronicles his experiences in basic training,
Vietnam, and his transition to the civilian world following a heroic return from combat.
The director of the Army entertainment liaison office, Col. Mitchell Marovitz,
chose to engage with the filmmakers to a certain degree. Most significantly, Marovitz
was able to correct the misperception that the Army had developed units full of mentally
challenged individuals. In fact, Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara had created

82
Suid, Lawrence (2002). Guts and Glory: The Making of the American Military Image. The University
Press of Kentucky. pg. 600.
83
Ibid. pg. 582.
84
Email from Phil Strub. Sept. 22, 2008.
55

“Project 100,000,” which was a 1966 program designed to help those who failed the
Army’s mental aptitude tests to join the military.
85
However, the men were incorporated
into regular units, not “special” units designed specifically for mentally challenged
personnel as the original Forrest Gump script portrayed. Because Marovitz was able to
fix this, he influenced a more positive portrayal of the Army even though official
assistance was never granted.
The film went on to win six Oscars, including best actor, best director and best
picture. In a survey, those who expressed an opinion (n=298) agreed to some extent
∗

(72%) that the film portrays the military in a positive light.
86
(disagreed to some extent =
28%; m.e. = 6%). Although military film liaisons do not have the benefit of seeing a
completed product when they decide to support a script or not, Forrest Gump presents
itself as a film that the military perhaps could have benefited more from if it had provided
greater assistance. Instead of getting caught up in specific details of single scenes, it
seems to be more important to look at the larger picture and message of Forrest Gump –
that his association with the military made him into a better and more well-rounded
person.
The lack of assistance for Forrest Gump also points to another important factor
regarding military assistance involving manpower. The Army’s entertainment liaison
office consists of an authorization for three personnel. During the time Forrest Gump
needed assistance, the Army had already agreed to provide assistance to two other feature

85
Greenhill, Kelly M. (2006, Feb. 17).The New York Times. Don't Dumb Down the Army. pg. 23.
∗
Those respondents who strongly agreed, agreed or slightly agreed were grouped together into a single
category described as "agreeing to some extent." Likewise, those that strongly disagreed, disagreed or
slightly disagreed were grouped as “disagreeing to some extent.”
86
Thesis survey results.
56
films: Renaissance Man with Danny DeVito and In the Army Now featuring Pauly Shore.
One of the greatest contributors to the Army not providing more assistance to the Forrest
Gump project was actually related to availability of personnel and the perceived benefit
the assistance would ultimately provide.

Crimson Tide (Navy, 1995 – denied full support)

Positive portrayal of a service is not necessarily the primary reason for providing
support to filmmakers. Accuracy concerning how a service member might or might not
behave is very important as well. This factor is what led the Navy to decide not to
support the film Crimson Tide. Even though most survey respondents who saw the
movie believe that it reflected positively on the Navy (n=152, agreed to some extent that
it portrayed the military in a positive manner = 68%; disagreed to some extent = 32%;
m.e. = 8%), they were split on their beliefs about its accuracy (agreed to some extent that
it was accurate = 52%; disagreed to some extent = 48%; m.e. = 8%).
Crimson Tide is about a Navy submarine that launches during a period of Russian
instability. Once underway, it receives an order to launch a nuclear attack, however
when the verification for that order is being transmitted, it is interrupted by an attack
from a pursuing Russian submarine, which knocks out radio communications. After
destroying the Russian submarine, the captain, played by Gene Hackman, determines that
the nuclear attack should be launched. His executive officer, played by Denzel
Washington, determines that before launching, they should receive the proper
authentication. The conflict results in a struggle for command of the ship, and ultimately
57

Washington’s character is able to delay launch until communications are restored,
enabling the crew to receive the all-clear message.
The Navy did provide extensive informational assistance to the filmmakers, but
were not willing to provide a submarine for authentic shots of submersing or a technical
advisor on the set. Admiral Kendel Pease, the Navy Chief of Information, explained that
the main reasons for denial of further support were due to “the portrayal of an armed
mutiny by the crew and senior officers” and “the characterization of their behavior,
decisions and performance in general and during the missile launching sequences.”
87

This demonstrated that if fictitious stories depict serious conflict, then they must be based
on fact to receive military assistance. The Navy did offer alternative scenarios to the
filmmakers, who rejected them, deciding that the suggestions would alter the story too
much.

G.I. Jane (Navy, 1997 – denied full support)

Common perceptions about the Navy’s decision to not support the film G.I. Jane are that
the Navy would never allow a female to take part in Navy Special Warfare training. The
real reason is that the filmmakers did not initially request assistance, thinking they would
not require it. When they eventually went to the Navy, they did not have enough time to

87
Suid, Lawrence (2002). Guts and Glory: The Making of the American Military Image. The University
Press of Kentucky. pg. 608.
58

resolve issues that could have been effectively negotiated, and thus did not ever receive
formal assistance.
88

G.I. Jane tells the story of a woman’s attempt to become the first female to
undergo Naval Special Warfare training. Lt. Jordan O’Neill, played by Demi Moore, is
requested by Senator Lillian DeHaven (Anne Bancroft) to go through the training as a
test case to prove that the Navy is becoming a more gender-neutral service. O’Neill
ultimately makes it through the training, earning her peers’ respect, and saving her
instructor’s life during a sudden Mideast crisis event.
In an attempt to gain assistance, Ridley Scott, during late negotiations with the
Navy, actually removed a scene where a male trainee refuses to pee in a fighting position
in front of Lt O’Neill because he is too embarrassed.
89
His attempt came too late, and the
film’s failure to gain official cooperation demonstrates that filmmakers must engage early
with the military to allow time to negotiate differences. Even first drafts of pro-military
movies such as The Green Berets and Top Gun required revisions before the military
would consent to support. With that in mind, it is essential that film projects with more
controversial topics allow ample time for negotiating assistance from the military.

Saving Private Ryan (Army, 1998 – courtesy assistance)

World War II era film Saving Private Ryan was shot primarily in Europe and the
Army had no WWII equipment to offer, so producers did not actually receive any

88
Haverstick, Dolores A. and Suid, Lawrence (2005). Stars and Stripes on Screen. The Scarecrow Press.
pp. 91-92.
89
Brown, Annie (2001, Aug. 30). Scottish Daily Record & Sunday Mail. Pentagon Rewrites Scripts to
Enhance Role of the Military.
59

materiel assistance from the U.S. military. However, Steven Spielberg, the director, did
send a script to the Army’s entertainment liaison office in Los Angeles for technical
advice, and the Army sent four pages of notes concerning factual inaccuracies in return.
90

Despite the lack of actual military assistance provided to the film, requests for assistance
on other film projects increased after its release, likely because of the film’s success.
The movie depicts the events of D-Day, but the plot centers around a squad of
men led by Tom Hanks as Capt. Miller trying to find the last surviving brother of a
family that recently lost three other sons in the war. To prevent the family from having to
endure the loss of a fourth son, Gen. Marshall orders that Pvt 1
st
Class Ryan, played by
Matt Damon, be located and sent home to his family. It is a fictitious story that is less a
history lesson and more a comment on Army brotherhood – both the ups and downs.
Producer Ian Bryce, commenting on his beliefs about war films, agrees that they
cause people to better realize the tragedy of war and allow viewers to understand the
sacrifices of men and women who have fought in war.
91
This rings true for Saving
Private Ryan, which has numerous factual errors throughout, but appeals to survey
respondents that expressed an opinion as both a positive (n=384, agreed to some extent
that it portrayed the military in a positive manner = 95%; disagreed to some extent = 5%;
m.e. = 5%), and accurate portrayal of the U.S. military (agreed to some extent that it was
accurate = 90%; disagreed to some extent = 10%; m.e. = 5%). It suggests that audiences
want to share the feelings of the characters and understand their sacrifices and that they
do not necessarily care about what really happened on the ground. When survey

90
Suid, Lawrence (2002). Guts and Glory: The Making of the American Military Image. The University
Press of Kentucky. pg. 631.
91
Author’s email interview with Ian Bryce. Sept. 16, 2008.

60

respondents were asked to rank influencing factors concerning how each affected their
opinions/attitudes about the U.S. military, more ranked “Documentaries” (70%) as one of
the top three factors than those who ranked “Movies” (24%) as one of their top three
factors (n=546, m.e.=4%).
92
Therefore, audiences are more influenced by military
documentaries than movies when it comes to perceptions about the military, and thus do
not expect to receive a history lesson from a feature film like Saving Private Ryan. Colin
Powell once said, “Historical accuracy (in a feature film) is desirable, but entertainment
value and using the visual power of film to make a point usually comes first. I don’t
expect perfect or even close historical accuracy. The written word and documentaries do
that best.”
93

Men of Honor (Navy, 2000 – full support)

For anyone who says that the military would never support a film about a
controversial topic, Men of Honor is an example of how they are wrong. The film tells
the story of Carl Brashear and his personal struggle to become a Navy diver following
President Truman’s order for the military to integrate. Cuba Gooding Jr. plays the role of

92
Question was “Please rank the following concerning how they affect your opinions/attitudes about the
U.S. military.” The number listed equals the summation of respondents who listed the stated factor as one
of the top three factors affecting their opinions/attitudes about the U.S. military:
1 - news sources (TV, paper, Internet), 420 -- 77%
2 - personal experience, 414 -- 76%
3 - documentaries, 384 -- 70%
4 - movies, 133 -- 24%
5 - TV, 105 -- 19%
6 - recruiting demonstrations, 84 -- 15%
7 - recruiting commercials on TV, 81 -- 15%
8 - video games, 17 -- 3%
93
Suid, Lawrence (2002). Guts and Glory: The Making of the American Military Image. The University
Press of Kentucky. pg. 636.
61

Brashear, who is forced to combat racism through a bigoted and unbalanced commander
and an overly tough instructor.
Certainly, the portrayal of the Navy as a racist service with senile commanders
and unfair policies could be destructive for the service. However, Lt. Cmdr. Darren
Morton, the director of the Navy Entertainment Liaison office at the time, said that he
“was never offended either as a Naval officer or as an African-American. In the end, an
ethnic member of the Navy achieved his dream at a time when society at large often
failed its minorities.”
94
He agreed to supporting the project with both technical and
materiel support.
Support for a film that engages with a controversial subject is not a disqualifier in
and of itself. How the script covers the subject is key, and if negative actions occur, then
the military has the obligation to allow them into a script. The military, however, also
has the right to ensure that an accurate representation is made of justice being served. In
the case of Brashear, he eventually became a Navy diver and a heroic figure for others to
follow.

Pearl Harbor (Air Force, Navy, 2001 – full support)

Another movie that portrayed the U.S. military during WWII, Pearl Harbor,
premiered in May of 2001 and received extensive assistance from the Navy and Air
Force. Although the services could not provide any vintage equipment, the Department

94
Suid, Lawrence (2002). Guts and Glory: The Making of the American Military Image. The University
Press of Kentucky. pg. 648.
62

of Defense provided a military technical advisor as well as access to Pearl Harbor,
Schofield Barracks and other Oahu military installations for filming.
95

Pearl Harbor is a “two boys fall in love with the same girl, but only one can have
her in the end” story reminiscent of the 1927 Best Picture film Wings, but this time told
during the time leading up to and following the attack on Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. Despite
initial claims by producer Steven Spielberg that the film would portray the attack
accurately, he later said that to tell what really happened “would take six hours.” Instead,
he said, “We had to combine characters. We had to speed up the drama. We are not
making a documentary. We always say that to the press. We got the essence of it.”
96

The Navy project officer, Lt. Melissa Schuermann, who was assigned to oversee
filming, admitted that she had to allow some historical changes to enhance dramatic
effect. She said, “We found ourselves compromising a lot. If it wasn't going to reflect
poorly on the Navy, then we let them leave it.”
97
For example, one scene depicts Cuba
Gooding Jr. as Navy cook Dorie Miller taking the helm of a .50 caliber machine gun and
shooting at passing Japanese bombers. Because director Michael Bay wanted to separate
the ships in battleship row so that Japanese aircraft could fly in between them, creating a
more dramatic scene, it appears that any shot of Miller’s that missed a bomber would
inadvertently hit a friendly ship in the distance.
98
Since most people don’t consider that
possibility, the Navy did not object. The military decided to allow dramatic effect to take
precedence over historical accuracy, and Miller’s actions were still portrayed in

95
Short Takes (2001, Jan. 15). Daily Variety. pg. 12.
96
Suid, Lawrence (2002). Guts and Glory: The Making of the American Military Image. The University
Press of Kentucky. pg. 649.
97
Crawley, James W. (2001, May 25) Copley News Service. Movies, military march in step.
98
Suid, Lawrence (2002). Guts and Glory: The Making of the American Military Image. The University
Press of Kentucky. pg. 663.
63

accordance with his true heroic actions. In reality, Miller’s rounds would not have struck
a friendly ship because the battleships were actually directly next to each other.

Black Hawk Down (Army, 2001 – full support)

Black Hawk Down falls into the post-Desert Storm period because production was
completed during the spring of 2001. Although its wide release didn’t come until
January 2002, and it benefited from the country’s newfound patriotism, its production
had nothing to do with the 9-11 terrorist attacks. Depicting a somewhat negative
incident, where 18 U.S. soldiers died during combat in Mogadishu, Somalia, the movie is
nonetheless able to convey to audiences the core military values of loyalty, discipline,
respect, selfless service, honor, integrity and personal courage. It was also an opportunity
for the military to show the difficulties associated with operations conducted in the
ambiguous environments that the military would likely be deployed to in coming years.
99

Little did the Army know that the September 11, 2001 attacks would propel its soldiers
into ambiguous environments sooner than military generals might have realized.
The movie is based upon Mark Bowden’s novel of the same name. It relays the
experiences of the soldiers of Task Force Ranger after a 30-minute mission goes awry
and transforms into a fifteen-hour ordeal that leaves 18 U.S. soldiers and more than a
thousand Somalis dead. The horrific events of that October 1993 day also led to broad
changes in U.S. policy for the region.

99
Suid, Lawrence (2002). Guts and Glory: The Making of the American Military Image. The University
Press of Kentucky. pg. 670.
64

Producer Jerry Bruckheimer actually visited Army Vice Chief of Staff Gen. John
M. Keane in his request for support and said, “General, I'm going to make a movie that
you and your Army will be proud of.”
100
For the production, the Army agreed to send
eight helicopters, to include MH-60 Black Hawk and AH-6 “little bird” helicopters, and
more than 130 troops to Morocco to film scenes even though it traditionally had denied
providing assistance to projects filmed outside of the U.S. The Army also provided
technical advisors as well as specialized training at Ft. Benning, Ga. and Ft. Campbell,
Ky. for the actors. All assistance combined cost the producers approximately $2.2
million, but exponentially increased the film’s authenticity.
101

Most importantly, the film is one of the few that received assistance from the
military’s usually silent Special Operations Command. The fact that one of the DoD
Project Officers, Tom McCollum, was an Army Special Forces officer and that
Bruckheimer visited with Gen. Keane likely contributed significantly to the
unprecedented assistance offered, especially since the film was shot primarily in
Morocco. Historically, the military had refused assistance because of filming outside of
the continental United States, but not so in this case. McCollum explained:
If military assets are available and the commands owning them agree, then
support can be provided. 160th Special Operations Aviation Regt Blackhawks
were flown to Mexico to assist in Clear and Present Danger as well. The
location is not the issue – availability is.
102

100
Hendren, John (2002, Jan. 31). The Korea Herald. A big thumbs-up for the U.S. military.
101
Ibid..
102
Author’s email interview with Tom McCollum. Oct. 14, 2008.

65
We Were Soldiers (Army, 2002 – full support)

Like Black Hawk Down, this movie was in production prior to 9-11 and premiered
after the terrorist attacks. The film also enjoyed box office success and was the top
grossing movie for the first weekend of March 2002.
103
Based on author Joe Galloway’s
book, We Were Soldiers Once…And Young, the movie tells the story of the November
1965 battle in the Ia Drang Valley between First Cavalry Division and North Vietnamese
regular army soldiers, with Mel Gibson portraying battlefield commander Lt. Col. Hal
Moore. For filming, the military provided technical advisors and military training for the
actors. It also provided access to Ft. Benning, Ga. for garrison scenes and Ft. Hunter-
Liggett in California for combat scenes.
104

The movie is also one of the few films to show Americans fighting a tough enemy
and winning on the field of battle in Vietnam. The Army quickly supported the film
project, especially since Hal Moore had worked extensively with scriptwriter Randall
Wallace for more than eight years on it.
105

The War on Terror Period (2002 – present)

The rehabilitation of the military reached its height with We Were Soldiers.
Although positive movies such as the Army’s The Great Raid, the Navy’s Tears of the

103
Box Office Mojo website. Retrieved Sept 20, 2008 from
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=weekend&id=weweresoldiers.htm
104
Suid, Lawrence (2002). Guts and Glory: The Making of the American Military Image. The University
Press of Kentucky. pg. 671.
105
Haverstick, Dolores A. and Suid, Lawrence (2005). Stars and Stripes on Screen. The Scarecrow Press.
pg. 265.
66
Sun and Marine Corps’ Flags of Our Fathers portrayed the military performing in
historical, or at least credible scenarios, many films to premier in the twenty-first century
following the 9-11 attacks would either be starkly anti-war (Jarhead, In the Valley of
Elah, Stop-Loss) or fantasy based (War of the Worlds, Iron Man, Transformers).
Interestingly, the anti-war films would all fail at the box office (at least those that
premiered by the date of this thesis) and the fantasy based films would become
blockbusters.

Jarhead (Marines, 2005 – denied)

Although the Marine Corps had developed a reputation for working with
filmmakers, even if they had a differing perspective from the military, it was incumbent
on the producer/writer/director team to agree to any requested changes in exchange for
whatever military support they required. If the filmmakers felt that the requested changes
altered the story too much, then they were free to make the film without the benefit of
military assistance. The film Jarhead falls into this category since it did not receive
military support.
Jarhead is based upon Anthony Swofford’s book, which recounts his personal
experiences as a Marine leading up to and during Desert Storm. It focuses on the mental
and psychological turmoil that the war had on him, and the frustration he experienced
from not experiencing combat as he had envisioned it despite his long preparation for it.
The Marine Corps reviewers believed that the script was too sensationalized and
did not reflect the Marine Corps as a whole, just one Marine's view of it. In addition, the
67

Marine Corps representatives believed that the script took too many creative liberties and
did not accurately portray the Marine Corps. The Marine entertainment liaison office did
make suggestions for the script, but the production company was not willing to make the
recommended script changes.
106
Ultimately, the inaccuracies in the script could not be
overcome and the film moved forward with support from private military technical
advisor Jim Dever.

War of the Worlds (Army, 2005 – full support)

Even though the Army has never gone to war with aliens, the service decided to
support Steven Spielberg’s re-make of H.G. Wells’ novel and radio play, War of the
Worlds. Providing military equipment as well as a technical advisor, the Army worked to
help make the depiction of soldiers as realistic as possible within a science fiction-based
fictional scenario. The film’s support had nothing to do with historical accuracy, but
ensuring technical accuracy was a primary concern with this project.
War of the Worlds is a science fiction fantasy movie about Martians attacking the
Earth and one man’s efforts (Tom Cruise’s character) to keep his children safe during the
attack. The military role in the film is centered on defeating the alien attack. One of the
big challenges on the set was working to show how the military might respond to such a
situation. Lt. Col. Todd Breasseale, who served as the DoD project officer on the film
said, “We don’t do the crazy Napoleonic techniques of everybody on line just walking
towards an alien tripod and firing. We do fire and maneuver and use cover and

106
Interview with Gunnery Sgt. Santiago Zapata – Marine Corps Entertainment Liaison office, Jul 16,
2008.
68

concealment and use the biggest thing imaginable to kill it, not silly guys with weapons.
There are ways to make things work.”
107
Unfortunately, Spielberg wanted everyone in
line and marching against the aliens. Although Breasseale didn’t agree with the
depiction, it wasn’t worth pulling assistance on the film.
He almost did pull assistance at one point, however. Breasseale recounted during
an interview, “We were shooting a tank going up a hill with hordes of people running up
behind the tank in the mud. The tank was slipping in the mud and I told the Asst.
Director that just because these tanks don’t have reverse lights on them doesn’t mean I
won’t back them off your set.”
108
His concern was for safety and he was very willing to
pull assistance if it was for a safety concern.
While on the set, the DoD project officer often is asked to provide technical
advice. Sometimes this can come in the form of ensuring a character’s military uniform
looks correct, but other times, it can provide opportunity for some creative input.
Breasseale described an instance on the set of the movie:
One day on the set, Spielberg gives me the script and it says, ‘military stuff,’ and
he asked me to fill it in with military jargon. Overnight, I came up with some
dialogue with some action sequences. I sat down with a guy from 10
th
Mountain
Division – a platoon sergeant who had been in a similar type of scenario – and we
bounced ideas off each other. I came up with four pages of dialogue and action
and gave them to Spielberg the next day on the set. He read it and thought it
looked cool. I called the writer who had some questions. We tweaked some
language and compressed some dialogue for Cruise’s character and the studio
said, ‘snap, that’s it.’ Now there are four pages of our dialogue in there because
they asked us specifically for that.
109

107
Interview with Lt. Col. Todd Breasseale – Army Entertainment Liaison office, Jun. 13, 2008.
108
Ibid.
109
Ibid.
69

Flags of Our Fathers (Marine Corps, 2006 – full support)

The film Flags of Our Fathers, also produced by Steven Spielberg and directed
by Clint Eastwood, conveys the stories of the six men who famously raised the flag on
Iwo Jima during the World War II battle. With a historically accurate script, the Marines
were keen to support it, but they recognized that because it focused on World War II, it
was unlikely to provide much recruiting benefit. In addition, the film questions the
military establishment and the war itself, but that is not necessarily a reason to deny
support. Maj. Stewart Upton, a military spokesman at the Pentagon described why the
Marines chose to support it saying, “You would hope the film, even though it's very
graphic, accurately depicts those who fought valiantly in the battles of our history, and
the Iwo Jima flag-raising was one of them.”
110

The original script needed very little adjustment since writers Paul Haggis and
William Broyles Jr. put together a historically accurate screenplay. For the materiel
support, the Marines were able to provide active duty Marines for use as extras, use of a
World War II era amphibious landing vehicle and access to 29 Palms and Camp
Pendleton installations to view training for research purposes and for post-production
requests (sound mixing of .50 cal machine guns; artillery and mortars firing.) In addition,
the DoD project officer from the Marine Corps worked alongside Eastwood in Iceland for
five weeks and assisted in providing active duty Air Force and Navy personnel for use in
filming there.

110
Hebert, James (2006, Oct. 20). The San Diego Union – Tribune. Filmmakers often march in review to
get military cooperation. pg. E.1

70
The assistance provided is typical of what the military can provide for a film
depicting an era where finding vintage military equipment is difficult. The Marine Corps
was able to find one amphibious landing vehicle, but most of the support was in the form
of providing information and access to knowledgeable extras who knew how to perform
basic military techniques such as conducting an amphibious beach assault – and make it
look real. Robert Lorenz, one of the film’s producers said, “There wasn't a terrible
amount they could do for us, being that this was a period picture.” He added, however,
“We definitely wanted (cooperation), and appreciated it.”
111

In the Valley of Elah (Army, 2007 – denied)

Paul Haggis, who co-wrote Flags of Our Fathers, was inspired to write a story
based on the globally reported death of Richard Davis, a Ft. Benning soldier and Iraq war
veteran who was killed by squad-mates allegedly because he planned to report them for
raping an Iraqi woman. To help make his story, entitled In the Valley of Elah, more
authentic, Haggis sought the help of the Army and requested assistance. Haggis, in a
July, 2008 Los Angeles Times article said that, after he submitted his script, his
producers received “21 pages of objections to parts of the film.” Haggis, who never

111
Hebert, James (2006, Oct. 20). The San Diego Union – Tribune. Filmmakers often march in review to
get military cooperation. pg. E.1
71

actually reviewed the notes, said his producers told him the notes “amounted to a refusal
to participate.”
112

In the Valley of Elah tells the story of a father’s search for the truth after his son
returns from Iraq and is mysteriously killed. Haggis pulled bits and pieces of occurrences
he saw on YouTube videos for ideas, and wove a story related to the horrors of post-
traumatic stress disorder. The Army denied support not on the basis that the events did
not happen, but that they did not happen in the context that Haggis portrayed them. “You
can’t put together all of the horrible things that happen in combat into one script and call
it historically accurate,” said Breasseale, adding, “that’s why we couldn’t support Mr.
Haggis’ script.”
113

Transformers (All, 2007 – full support)

The military did support Michael Bay’s Transformers, and according to producer
Ian Bryce, the film would have had a totally different look and feel without official
military assistance. He believes that the film still would have been made had the U.S.
military not agreed to support the project, but said, “We would have had to procure
private or foreign military aid otherwise, which would have meant different assets and
huge cost implications.” Assets provided to the filmmakers included various aircraft
such as A10's, F22's, C130, E-3 Sentry AWACs, CV-22 Osprey, and many ground

112
Barnes, Julius (2008, July 7). The Los Angeles Times. The Iraq war movie: Military hopes to shape
genre. Retrieved Aug 20, 2008 from http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-na-armyfilms7-
2008jul07,0,1104079,full.story.
113
Interview with Lt. Col. Todd Breasseale – Army Entertainment Liaison office, Jun. 13, 2008.
72

vehicles such as Humvees.
114
The military also provided access to Edwards Air Force
Base in California and both Holloman Air Force Base and White Sands Missile Range in
New Mexico. In addition to advisors from the various branches, the military provided
almost 300 active duty personnel to serve as extras for the film.
115

Like War of the Worlds, however, the scenes from Transformers could not be
based upon reality, since no dueling robot species from outer space have ever come to
Earth to fight it out. Still, the military saw the intangible recruiting benefit from the film
as well as the opportunity to showcase, “the self-sacrifice, duty and commitment to
something beyond oneself.”
116

Lions for Lambs (Army, 2007 – not requested – at least initially)

Lions for Lambs is an anti-war movie that melds three separate stories into one.
The story revolves around two college students who want to make a difference and
decide to join the Army to fight terrorists. Robert Redford plays their former college
professor who uses their story as a springboard to lecture one of his apathetic yet very
bright current students about the importance of standing up for what he believes. The last
story is about a cocky Republican congressman who has come up with a solution to the
war, and is testing his plan, which ultimately fails, with the Army unit to which the first
two students are now assigned.

114
Email interview with Ian Bryce, Sept. 16, 2008.
115
Miles, Donna (2007, Jun 21). American Forces Press Service. Movie makers team with military to create
realism.
116
Ibid.
73

Throughout the entire production, director Robert Redford did not request any
form of military assistance. Redford was intent on making a film that would be critical of
the administration’s war policies and war itself, and with modern advances in computer
generated imaging, he could now recreate combat infiltration scenes via military
helicopter without the military’s assistance.
Still, after production was complete, Redford decided to shoot a few more scenes.
One of the producers decided to call the Army’s entertainment liaison office for some
guidance. The producer explained that they wanted to re-shoot a command center
sequence and the Army official, Lt. Col. Breasseale agreed to give them the requested
assistance. For three days, the producer sent Breasseale lengthy emails and Breasseale
answered all their questions. Breasseale then visited the set to help them get the imagery
correct, and he agreed to go in for the shoot. The day of the shoot, Redford came back,
and Breasseale got a call from the producer saying that they would not need him to come
in. The producer said that Redford told him, “I don’t want the DoD’s fingerprints on this
film.”
117

This demonstrates that it is not always the military that denies assistance. In this
situation, as with any situation where official assistance is not provided, no negotiations
took place and no production agreement was signed. The Army office simply wanted to
help the film accurately depict a command center. Breasseale had spent time in a
command center and had served as an Army entertainment liaison for more than five
years – he knew how to make the movie appear more accurate. Nonetheless, his
assistance was not welcome simply because he was a DoD representative.

117
Interview with Lt. Col. Todd Breasseale – Army Entertainment Liaison office, Jun. 13, 2008.
74

country.

Stop-loss (Army, 2008 – did not request support)

Some movies are produced just to entertain audiences and some are produced to
make a point. Stop-loss, written and directed by Kimberly Peirce, was created because,
as she said, “I wanted to get as deeply inside the soldier's experience as possible, to
understand their reasons for signing up, their experiences [both] in combat and upon
coming home, and the effects on their families and their lives after battle.”
118
Her
interest and research was born out of her brother serving in Iraq and the almost daily
contact she had with him, the members of his unit and other soldiers she was interviewing
across the
Peirce’s story, Stop-loss, follows a soldier’s heroic return from combat and his
plans to leave the service after performing his duty honorably. Unfortunately, the Army
has other plans and he is “stop-lossed,” and forbidden from leaving military service until
he serves another tour in Iraq. “Stop-loss,” in the military, is a term that describes an
involuntary extension of a service member’s active duty service.
Normally, the Army would at least provide some courtesy assistance to a
filmmaker if the filmmaker asked for it. In an email, Peirce explained her research
methods:
I began delving into the lives of soldiers the only way I knew how. I picked up a camera
and began traveling the country, interviewing active duty officers and soldiers who had
just returned from Iraq and their families. I collected a broad range of experiences and
stories, all the while remaining in contact with my brother and his unit who were actively
fighting in Iraq. When it came time to make the movie, I sought out the best military
adviser in the industry, Sgt. Major Jim Dever, 25 years in the Marines, in charge of many
of the Arlington Funerals, who has worked on over 30 films and TV projects for Clint

118
Email response from Kimberly Peirce. Oct. 30, 2008.

75

Eastwood, Sam Mendes, Steven Soderbergh, and many other top directors, and I
surrounded myself on set with numerous other soldiers who had served in Iraq to make
sure that the action, movement, dialogue, and everything about the representation of
soldiers and the military was as accurate as possible.
119

When asked if she had considered turning to the Army’s entertainment liaison
office for assistance, she explained that she had not known of the office's existence
during research and production of the film. She thus could not evaluate whether
contacting them would have been effective or not for her purposes.
She also said that subject matter could potentially be a concern when speaking
with an official military liaison office and perhaps the military could explore this as
something that might be a concern among many filmmakers. She also wondered what
could be done to increase awareness of the office within the Hollywood community.
120

The Lucky Ones (Army, 2008 – full support)

The makers of the film The Lucky Ones, which premiered in limited release on
Sept. 26, 2008, did know about the Army office, and approached it for assistance early in
the filmmaking process. Breasseale said he had a “great first meeting” with the director
and two of the producers. He also spoke on the phone with two of the cast members –
Rachel McAdams and Tim Robbins. In Breasseale’s words, “the five of them couldn't
have been more honest in what they were trying to do and the entire process was
fantastically collaborative.”
121
He pointed out that when they needed advice or a vignette

119
Email response from Kimberly Peirce. Oct 30, 2008.
120
Ibid.
121
Interview with Lt. Col. Todd Breasseale – Army Entertainment Liaison office, Jun. 13, 2008.
76

on a similar point in the story, they would ask and he would help. The Lucky Ones is the
story of three soldiers returning from war, but not about the war itself. Breasseale notes:
Each [of the characters] are honest representations of very decent, honorable, yet
still flawed people. In other words, they were interesting. They were real. And,
they were characters I thought that I might have worked with earlier in my career,
played by very honest, decent, and extremely thorough actors.
122

In fact, Rachel McAdams went incognito and embedded herself with a military
police unit at Ft. Campbell, Kentucky. for two weeks in 2007 so that she could better
understand how to portray a young woman in the Army accurately.
123

122
Interview with Lt. Col. Todd Breasseale – Army Entertainment Liaison office, Jun. 13, 2008.
123
Ibid.
77

Chapter 4: The Current Situation

Americans have loved movies for more than a century. In 2007, the movie
industry took in more than $9.6 billion in total box office gross.
124
It has also been
popularly referred to as America’s “dream factory.” People love to comment on movies
– the best, the worst, the most realistic, the funniest, the scariest – and most everyone has
opinions. From these opinions evolve perceptions: those beliefs derived from past
experiences intermixed with culture that alters a person’s meaning of truth.
Although public perceptions about the military are mostly shaped by personal
experiences with service members, news stories (TV, newspaper, radio) and
documentaries, movies and television fall next in the order of precedence.
125
Feature
films can be especially influential because even though a movie portrays a dramatic,
often completely fictional story, a darkened theater provides for more attentive viewers
who can become immersed in the medium far more than is possible for those watching
TV or attending recruiting demonstrations at the state fair.
So, one might think that the military’s public relations efforts are extensive when
it comes to working with Hollywood. After all, if evidence suggests that movies and TV
influence more people than recruiters’ efforts, then one would expect the budget for the
military’s entertainment liaison offices to be significant. In reality, the offices for each of
the services (Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines and Coast Guard) each have fewer than
five personnel assigned to them. The Pentagon’s office consists of two civilians and one
commissioned officer on temporary duty status.

124
The Numbers website. Retrieved Sept.25, 2008 from http://www.the-numbers.com/market/2007.php
125
Thesis survey results. See footnote for Saving Private Ryan analysis on pg. 76 for breakdown.
78

To get an idea of the workload of the entertainment liaison offices, Lt. Col. Todd
Breasseale from the Army office described a typical week:
We have a civilian director, one Lt. Col, and a master sergeant assigned to our
office. To help us keep our heads above water, we currently have a reservist Lt.
Col. who has volunteered to fill in here since 2004 and one staff sergeant who is a
recovering wounded warrior helping two to three times a week to serve as an
administrative assistant. The reservist was released at the end of September 2008,
so that leaves three people to handle all of the work. This includes all feature film
requests, which number about one per week, and all of the Army’s documentaries,
which number between 10 and 30 per week. For documentaries, we do all of the
legal stuff and track the production company, but we must hand most of the
ground work off to the unit public affairs officers, who aren’t necessarily trained
to manage a production crew. For feature films, we read the scripts for accuracy,
negotiate any necessary changes, and then are ‘onsite’ for production to help with
technical questions and to make judgment calls on script change requests. Onsite
work can take us out of the office for up to six weeks at a time. In addition, we
work with television show, entertainment media, and late night talk show
requests. We also are responsible for all Army community relations for the West
Coast.
126

Although the military is not in the entertainment support business, an argument
that critics often use when faced with the topic of expanding the entertainment liaison
offices, to deny the strategic communication benefits of maintaining close relationships
within the entertainment industry is faulty reasoning. Ken Hawes, the director of the
Army office described his concerns when asked how many films his office receives per
week:
I got a movie request on Sunday and read the script on Tuesday at home.
Fortunately they want to shoot at a BRAC (Base Realignment and Closure) base
and the movie is set during WWII. We can provide courtesy support, but I am
running out of bodies.
127

At the time he responded, the reserve Lt. Col. in his office was retiring, with no
backfill in sight, his other Lt. Col. was out of the office for six weeks working on the set

126
Interview with Lt. Col. Todd Breasseale – Army Entertainment Liaison office, Jun. 13, 2008.
127
Email interview with Ken Hawes – Army Entertainment Liaison office, Sept. 24, 2008.
79
of Transformers II and his master sergeant was busy supporting the TV show Army
Wives. Hawes was simply out of bodies available to take on a script even if it was the
next version of Top Gun.
The goal of the offices is to assist film, television, video and cd-rom game
professionals in all matters relating to the United States military and the load is
tremendous, which makes the task of being proactive nearly impossible. Still, each of the
services does their best to reach out to the entertainment community. The Navy, Air
Force and Coast Guard all take film industry players to bases so that they can learn more
about the services. “Hollywood in the Navy” is an initiative in which members of the
Navy office take producers, writers and directors to a naval installation and give them the
opportunity to go aboard ships or travel out to an aircraft carrier to watch flight ops for a
night. Keeping the event fun and educational is essential, and this proactive action puts
the Navy in key players’ minds and helps shape the way they look at the Navy. The
problem is that the big players in the film industry, who would benefit most from events
such as this, do not have the time to learn more about how the military operates.
The Air Force has a unique way of engaging with the industry. It has assembled a
civilian board of advisors comprised of 12-15 former members of the entertainment
industry. The board meets once a quarter to discuss trends and new projects and, as
members finish their tenure on the board, they recommend their replacements, which
helps to keep fresh ideas flowing into the organization. The Air Force entertainment
liaisons listen to the board’s suggestions and constantly read newspapers and industry
magazines to stay in tune with what’s going on. They will then send out letters to
entertainment industry personnel and pitch ideas for Air Force related topics. To ensure
80
they maintain relationships in a town where relationships are everything, the Air Force
will take new personnel out to the studios to meet key people on the lots. To engage with
Hollywood’s upcoming talent, they speak at film school classes, both at nearby USC and
UCLA.
Occasionally, the Department of Defense will put together a military
entertainment liaison panel to give a presentation about how each service can offer help
to a movie project. One of the biggest challenges the offices face, however, is simply
getting the message out that each service is available to assist. When simply trying to
support the amount of requests that come in each week, it is very difficult to maintain a
proactive approach to one of the most strategic communication initiatives within the
military.
81
Chapter 5: Recommendations

For the military

The current structure of the Department of Defense’s entertainment liaison offices
is such that those assigned are barely able to maintain even an effective reactive posture,
much less do anything strategically proactive for an industry that is arguably one of the
most influential in the world. Those offices that have set forth more proactive tactics are
not as effective as they could be if they had more time to engage the industry on multiple
fronts – strategically. The Air Force has created a board of advisors. Several of the
services conduct VIP visits for key entertainment industry individuals to highlight
military equipment. Occasionally, but not regularly, the military holds panels to educate
filmmakers about how it can assist with film projects, but none of these tactics, when
done irregularly and without a more strategic vision will amount to any measurable
benefit.
Recommendations for the offices are divided into three areas:
1. How the offices should approach engagement with filmmakers
2. Suggestions for more proactive engagement with the film industry
3. Personnel composition of the offices that will better enable accomplishment of
recommendations one and two.

The military must look at the big picture when it comes to a film project. Many
examples in the past show that use of profanity or sexual scenes served as the stumbling
blocks to receiving assistance, yet the overall script provided viewers a positive view of
the military. One example of this is the Navy’s refusal to work on An Officer and a
82

Gentleman where a Navy officer said the sexually explicit activities and foul language
depicted in various scenes were “profane and morally objectionable.” Lt. Col. Breasseale
of the Army’s office said:
I have this idea that the language of war is honest and real and is the way soldiers
talk. If a guy has to drop the F-bomb to express how his leg has been blown off,
then that’s how it should come across in the movie. I believe it’s up to the studios
to monitor the language. They have the MPAA and the ratings board to deal with.

Considering the big picture does not mean that the military should alter its current
standards. Interestingly, slightly more survey respondents in a survey (55%) agreed to
some extent that “military cooperation with a movie maker equals condonement of the
subject matter” (disagreed to some extent = 45%; m.e. = 4.6% for n = 457).
128
Therefore,
military liaisons should work diligently to remove objectionable scenes in a screenplay
and possibly consider a requirement in the production assistance agreement stating that if
the final product is not acceptable, then they will not allow the studio to acknowledge
military assistance, as was done in the film The Great Santini.
Compromise is impossible without any engagement. Don Baruch realized this
with the film From Here to Eternity, and the outcome was much more positive for the
Army than it would have been otherwise. Buruch understood that there are tactful ways
to suggest changes to objectionable scenes, and it is important for entertainment liaisons
to understand how to engage filmmakers.
Military project officers must also be careful to ensure that their input does not
overtly censor a film project. Most people (63%) agree to some extent “involvement of
the military in making sure a movie provides an accurate portrayal of the military leads to
censorship and/or limits a moviemaker's capability” (disagree to some extent = 37%; m.e.

128
Thesis survey results.
83
= 4.6% for n = 448). This presents a quandary for military entertainment liaisons to
ensure that the assistance they provide limits creativeness as minimally as possible, but
also supports military accuracy.
Maintaining historical accuracy of an event should not be critical to receiving
military cooperation, however. Tonal accuracy, meaning how a military character may
act in a given situation compared to a real military member, is very important though. As
with Saving Private Ryan, many gross historical inaccuracies remained in the final
product, but the film has resonated with audiences as one of the most positive and
accurate films ever made about the military.
This leads to another important recommendation for incoming entertainment
liaison officers – to understand the entertainment industry prior to arriving on a set.
Professionalism and service knowledge are paramount, but in an interview, Jim
Bernstein, writer for the film Renaissance Man, pointed out the importance of
filmmakers’ and military officers’ mutual understanding of each others’ culture. He said:
On the set of Renaissance Man at Fort Jackson, I watched a clash or two between
the line producer and the Army liaison on set. Obviously, the Army didn't like
having their people sitting around all day while waiting to be used in whatever
scene Penny [the director] needed them for. It was clear that the Army liaison
didn't understand that this was standard operating procedure on a set. Hurry up
and wait. And the line producer didn't understand what the Army liaison's
problem was. There was clearly a culture clash here.

The development of a Hollywood/Military liaison commission that can study
relations between the two cultures and publish helpful guidelines to those interested in
making films with the military would benefit both communities greatly. Additionally, it
should be a requirement for incoming entertainment liaison personnel to enroll in
professional development courses. The University of Southern California, for example,
84

offers classes in both the movie business and script analysis on the main campus. Both
are subjects that would serve a military entertainment liaison well. USC also offers a
graduate-level course called “A Motion Picture Studio and How it Operates” taught at
Sony Studios during evening hours.
129
A partnership with either USC or UCLA (which
may offer similar courses) might be an option worthy of further consideration for the
military. In addition, the American Film Institute offers classes and workshops that
would be beneficial to newly minted military entertainment liaisons. This will enable
DoD project officers to take on more of an advisory role earlier in their assignment and
avoid being simply labeled as “script minders.”
A synchronized engagement plan is necessary as well. It should be organized by
the Department of Defense – not any of the individual services. A plan to take key
entertainment officials to military bases should be organized and managed by the DoD so
that the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines each become responsible for hosting a tour
of bases and equipment each quarter – one service per quarter. The platform has already
been developed by several of the services, with the Navy’s “Fleet Week” and the Air
Force’s “Air Force Week,” they just need to be synchronized to maximize exposure for
each service.
Once the pattern is established and maintained, then filmmakers will begin to
attend. The tour should be simple, yet educational and entertaining as possible.
Engagement with those who have the ability to shape the perceptions of society is
critical. An argument against this is that filmmakers are often so busy that they would not
attend events such as this. However, if creative executives, screenwriters and production

129
This course is part of the Business of Entertainment Concentration Program being offered at USC for
the Spring 2009 semester.
85
managers were directly targeted and the general public was invited as well, then
attendance would likely increase, especially if the events occurred on a regular basis.
Further, if this were put forward as both a courtesy to filmmakers and a requirement for
film professionals seeking military support, representatives of the industry would be very
likely to appear.
The offices should work more diligently to get their existence known in the
industry as a technical assistance resource that is available for helping to make any film
about the military more authentic. Currently, very little is done to educate filmmakers
about how the offices can assist them, and filmmakers need to understand what they can
gain from receiving assistance from the entertainment liaison offices. Some articles and
books have appeared, but many have created the impression that the offices are only
interested in creating a positive image for the military rather than creating an accurate
portrayal of the military in a collaborative fashion. The offices should be visiting film
schools across the country to educate budding filmmakers and organizing seminars at
film festivals and trade shows (such as the Association of Film Commissioners
International Locations Trade Show) to reach more seasoned filmmakers. This also
should be organized by the DoD so that one service is not over-represented in the
process.
The services, in coordination with the DoD, should also regularly visit each of the
studios and other financiers to pitch benefits of assistance. The visits should consist of
creative discussions with the various creative executives at each of the studios to promote
increased dialogue. For financiers, explanation of the various equipment and associated
costs would attract attention. Regular visits to these studios and finanaciers will help to
86
l.

establish relationships that will blossom into a more open communication process
between the military and the entertainment industry. Care would have to be taken to
ensure that the military would not simply attempt to create the best possible self-image
however. In a survey, those who expressed an opinion (n=448) agreed to some extent
(76%) that involvement of the military to create the best possible image of itself leads to
propaganda (disagreed to some extent = 24%; m.e. = 4.6%).
The Air Force’s board of advisors is an excellent forum to generate ideas, but this
should be a board organized by the DoD to benefit all services, and the ideas that emerge
from this board should be communicated by the DoD representative that attends the
creative sessions. Perhaps members of the board who are not on active duty should be
charged to approach creative executives rather than a uniformed representative to avoid
associations with government propaganda as much as possible.
Also, the military offices should consider creation of a non-disclosure statement
for filmmakers who might consider approaching the offices, but are concerned that the
military might attempt to censor their work. Although those in the military liaison offices
might see this as unnecessary because they would never publicly disparage a script, it is a
possible concern for many filmmakers according to Kimberly Peirce, writer and director
for the movie Stop-loss.
130
Robert Redford’s hesitation to utilize the Army’s assistance
in Lions for Lambs may have stemmed from this concern as wel
Certainly, part of the solution is to expand the Department of Defense office and
each of the service offices in Los Angeles. Historical analysis shows that even if a
service does not support a project officially, its input can measurably change the outcome

130
Telephone interview with Kimberly Peirce, Oct. 20, 2008.
87

is worrisome.

of the final script, even if the change is only in the perception the filmmaker has of the
military and its willingness to ensure accuracy. Forrest Gump and Crimson Tide are
examples of this phenomenon in which official support was not granted, but courtesy
assistance helped to make the films more accurate and more beneficial for the military in
the end. Without enough personnel in the office, however, a service may elect to simply
deny any assistance to a more challenging script because too many other projects are
currently being supported, whether they are film, TV or video game (or most recently –
web-based) related.
The armed forces must consider that influences are changing within the industry.
If closer ties are not built within the extremely influential entertainment industry, then
others who are far less friendly to U.S. interests than anyone currently in Hollywood will
attempt to project their perspective to the American public through all forms of
entertainment media. This is especially true in today’s troubled financial times when
Stephen Prough, co-founder of Los Angeles investment bank Salem Partners says,
“Hollywood is turning to places like the Middle East and India because Wall Street is
finding it difficult to get deals done.”
131
No longer is the question, “how will
engagement benefit the military?” Instead, the question must be, “how will non-
engagement potentially hurt the military?” With entertainment liaison responsibilities
ranging from feature films to documentaries to television dramas to reality shows and
now to web-based programming, the minimal emphasis currently placed on industry
engagement

131
Grover, Ronald (2008, Jun 23). BusinessWeek. Tinseltown: Hooray for Bollywood. pg. 35.
88
The DoD office should be expanded beyond its current size of two civilians. Both
work extremely hard to support each film request as much as possible, but it is impossible
for them to engage with the industry more proactively as they are currently structured.
The office should add five personnel to create a team of seven that can better coordinate
assistance to the film industry:
• One director – civilian
• One deputy director – military
• Two project officers – civilian
• Two entertainment industry relations officers – military
• One office manager – civilian

Because the director reports directly to the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense
for Internal Communications and Public Liaison, who is a civilian, it is appropriate for
him or her, in the interest of continuity, to be a civilian as well. A military deputy
director could bring in fresh perspective and better synergize the service offices, which
should all have military directors. The two civilian project officers would provide
continuity as entertainment industry experts, reviewing incoming projects, and the two
military entertainment industry liaisons would work together to create and implement a
strategic plan to proactively engage with the entertainment industry. Finally, the office
manager would be responsible for assisting the director and coordinating all schedules
within the office.

89

Taking the best from each of the various military offices in Los Angeles, the
minimum for each of the service-based offices should be six full-time personnel:
• One director – military
• One deputy director – civilian
• Two project officers – military
• One entertainment industry relations officer – military
• One office manager – civilian
• 4-5 Reservist project officers – military

Each office currently has either a civilian or military director, with a deputy. This
author believes that the director should be a military officer because he or she will bring
perspective from the field as new personnel rotate into the position. One argument
against this comes from former Marine entertainment officer Josh Rushing, who has
since left military service to work with Al-Jazeera English as a reporter. He correctly
notes that most officers in the decision-making process transfer every two to three years,
so the rationale for the projects that the offices decide to support varies widely from year
to year.
132
This argument is a valid concern, and is why the author believes that the
deputy should be a permanent civilian position – to provide continuity. Still, because it is
military officers at the Pentagon to whom the service office directors must directly report,
it is important that they be military to better facilitate understanding of the industry to
their superiors.
Most services currently have two personnel to serve as project officers, but the
main addition to this proposal is the inclusion of an entertainment industry relations
officer. The focus of this position would be on creating a strategic plan to proactively
engage with the entertainment industry in conjunction with the DoD officers. Also, each

132
Rushing, Josh (2007). Mission Al-Jazeera. Palgrave MacMilllan. pp. 32-33.
90
service should work to build a cadre of reserve officers who can serve as project officers
when the workload is sufficient to bring them on active status. These suggestions
represent the minimal changes that should be implemented. While engagement does not
necessarily guarantee positive portrayals, non-engagement almost ensures the negative
portrayals of the military will increase.

For filmmakers

Research is critical. Filmmakers must understand the importance of researching
their topic with military members prior to submitting a script. When a filmmaker
conducts research with military personnel, it is important to first go to the various service
offices. Often, these offices will be able to point the filmmaker to a particular subject
matter expert within the service via the courtesy assistance procedure. No distribution
agreement is necessary to receive courtesy assistance, and the research conducted during
the script development phase of a project can be of great value to future assistance
granted to the film project. When a filmmaker gets to the point of requesting formal
assistance, it is important for him/her to communicate who he/she has already spoken
with since this could assist with the process.
Filmmakers must also understand that working with military personnel and
working with the entertainment liaison offices can produce two separate outcomes. A
service member with no connection to the liaison offices can be a tremendous source of
information, but that person cannot promise any sort of assistance to the filmmaker. Only
the entertainment liaison offices can legally enter into negotiations for assistance to
91
filmmakers. It is important to keep contacts in both areas and keep all parties informed of
any discussions to facilitate the progress of assistance agreements. Otherwise, a
filmmaker could get the wrong idea and spend money on a project that may have no hope
of receiving any military assistance. It is important to get involved in discussions with
the military liaison offices early.
Regarding the selection of topics, filmmakers should understand that a film
depicting negative aspects of the service can receive assistance too. It all depends on
how the story is told. Men of Honor is an example of a film that depicted the days of
military desegregation and held an accurate depiction of racism in the service.
The most important point that filmmakers and military liaisons must remember is
that collaboration is vitally important. As the generation of Americans who were obliged
to serve in the military via the draft grows older and older, and the chasm between most
of the population and service members increases, it is ever more critical for the military
to engage the influential entertainment industry. Hollywood and the military have long
worked together to tell the story of the warrior. Whether that story is told by way of a
fantasy movie like Transformers or a look back at a historical event like Pearl Harbor or
even a film about a controversial policy like Stop-Loss, audiences will want to find ways
to relate to their warriors. It is up to the military to engage with Hollywood to help
America understand that our service members are just like everyone else, but that they
have dedicated themselves to the service of their country and their brothers and sisters
around them.
92
Bibliography

Barnes, Julius (2008, July 7). Los Angeles Times. The Iraq war movie: Military hopes to
shape genre.

Box Office Mojo website. Retrieved from
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=weekend&id=weweresoldiers.htm.

Breasseale, Todd (2008, Jun. 13). Army Entertainment Liaison Officer. Personal
interview.

Brown, Annie (2001, Aug. 30). Scottish Daily Record & Sunday Mail. Pentagon
Rewrites Scripts to Enhance Role of the Military.

Bryce, Ian (2008 Sept. 16). Producer. Personal interview.

Crawley, James W. (2001, May 25) Copley News Service. Movies, military march in
step.

Dever, Jim (2008, Sept. 26). Military Technical Advisor. Telephone interview.

Department of Defense Instruction 5410.16. January 26, 1988. pg. 2.

Digital History Website. Retrieved from
http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/modules/ww2/wartimehollywood.html

Ford, Daniel. The Warbird Forum webpage. From life to novel to film.

Greenhill, Kelly M. (2006, Feb. 17).The New York Times. Don't Dumb Down the Army.
pg. 23.

Hall, Mordaunt (1928, Aug. 31). The New York Times. Movie Review – Submarine.

Halloran, Richard (1986, Aug. 29). The New York Times. Navy Recovers from Yearlong
Recruiting Slump. Sect A, pg. 13, col. 3.

Haverstick, Dolores A. and Suid, Lawrence (2005). Stars and Stripes on Screen. The
Scarecrow Press. Lanham, Maryland.

Hastings, Chris (2008, July 13). The Sunday Telegraph (London). Kubrick: a props
odyssey. pg. 18.

Hawes, Ken (2008, Sept. 24). Director, Army Entertainment Liaison office. Email
interview.

93
Hebert, James (2006, Oct. 20). The San Diego Union – Tribune. Filmmakers often
march in review to get military cooperation. pg. E.1.

Hendren, John (2002, Jan. 31). The Korea Herald. A big thumbs-up for the U.S. military.

IMDB webpage. Retrieved from http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0079261/synopsis.

IMDB webpage. Retrieved from http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0056197/awards.

Jenkins, Maureen (2003, March). Boeing Frontiers. Art imitates life for Pentagon liaison.

Kroll, Jack (1978, Feb. 20). Newsweek. Vietnam Hero Worship. pg. 87.

McCollum, Tom (2008,Oct. 14). Army Entertainment Liaison Officer. Email interview

Michaels, Jim (1990, Feb. 24). The San Diego Union-Tribune. Hollywood, military forge
wary alliance. Pg. A-1.

Miles, Donna (2007, Jun 21). American Forces Press Service. Movie makers team with
military to create realism.

Murray, Donald M. (2005, Nov. 22). The Boston Globe. War is nothing like a Hollywood
movie.

Naval Historical Center webpage. Battle of the Coral Sea, 7-8 May 1942 -- Overview and
Special Image Selection.

Pass in Review – The Idaho Military Historical Society Magazine (2002, March). Korean
Conflict’s 50
th
Anniversary.

Peirce, Kimberly (2008, Oct. 20). Director. Telephone interview.

Propaganda Critic website. Retrieved from
http://www.propagandacritic.com/articles/ww1.cpi.html.

Robb, David L. (2004). Operation Hollywood. Prometheus Books. New York. pp. 278-
279.

Rushing, Josh (2007). Mission Al-Jazeera. Palgrave MacMilllan. pp. 32-33.

Saunders, John Monk (1927, Jul. 31). The New York Times. The War in the Air: The
Government Cooperated to Make Wings Thrilling and True.

Seelye, Katharine Q. (2002, Jun 10). The New York Times. When Hollywood's Big Guns
Come Right From the Source. pg. 1.
94

Short Takes (2001, Jan. 15). Daily Variety. pg. 12.

Stewart, Jim (1990, Feb. 2). The Globe and Mail. There's no life like it when the cameras
roll, Navy-style.

Strub, Philip M. (2008, Sept. 22). Special Assistant for Audiovisual, Office of the
Secretary of Defense, Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs. Personal
email.

Suid, Lawrence (2002). Guts and Glory: The Making of the American Military Image.
The University Press of Kentucky. Lexington, Kentucky.

The Numbers website. Retrieved from http://www.the-numbers.com/market/2007.php

Toplin, Robert Brent (1996). History by Hollywood. University of Illinois Press. pg. 93.

Trivia-Library.com website. History of Shows and Major Events in Television in the
1960s Part 1. Retrieved from http://www.trivia-library.com/a/history-of-shows-
and-major-events-in-television-in-the-1960s-part-1.htm.

Wellman, William Jr. (2006). The Man And His Wings. Praeger Publishing. pg. 131.

Zapata, Santiago (2008, Jul 16). Marine Corps Entertainment Liaison Officer. Personal
interview.

Abstract (if available)

Abstract War movies have captivated audiences since the earliest days of the film industry, and the military has assisted filmmakers since that time. This thesis describes military support to filmmakers, first by examining the regulations, then through analysis of 42 military-related films. The films chosen for historical analysis do not constitute a complete list. It is my intent that the selected films will reveal considerations taken by past and present military entertainment liaison personnel. Thus, through their examination, the reader will gain a better understanding of how the military decides to provide assistance to filmmakers as well as how filmmakers gain approval to receive assistance if they so choose. Finally, it examines the current situation and offers recommendations for future military engagement with the entertainment business -- one of the most influential sectors of our global society.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Power party girls, good looking crowds and one hellish boss: The portrayal of the female entertainment publicist on reality television

PDF

That's just what this country needs: another film that's a flop at the flicks: a PR perspective on the success of home-grown films at the Australian box office

PDF

The evolution of the internal communications practice and its importance to the survival of organizations

PDF

The food truck phenomenon: A successful blend of PR and social media

PDF

Capturing and maintaining the essence of luxury in the dynamic global marketplace

PDF

The influence of new media marketing public relations on the South Korean film industry -- in relation to the U.S. film industry

PDF

A study and comparison of the IPO communications environments and communications strategies in the U.S. and Hong Kong

PDF

An analysis of influence strategies within the competitive sports marketplace: how the discipline of "playmaking" can be applied to the competitive sports marketplace

PDF

The implementation of corporate social responsibility initiatives as a strategy for post-crisis rebuilding and renewal

PDF

A study of social media practices and trends in the field of investor relations

PDF

Why public relations is important for the representation of Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders in entertainment

PDF

A lost art: a history of miniatures in motion pictures. Do practical effects still have a place in Hollywood?

PDF

One of us: exploring the relationship between Hollywood and disability

PDF

Return of the MAC: a strategic communication plan to resonate with Gen Z consumers

PDF

Comparative analysis of peer-to-peer lending in China and the United Kingdom: an assessment of the Lending Plaza’s market entry prospects

PDF

A case study of Nintendo during COVID-19: illustrated by the launch of Nintendo Switch and Animal Crossing: New Horizons

PDF

An analysis of underwater habitats a development of the outline for aquatectural graphic standards

PDF

MATCH CUT: the making of professional screenwriters and a (counter)storytelling movement in film school

PDF

Homegrown violent extremism: designing a community-based model to reduce the risk of recruitment and radicalization

Asset Metadata

Creator Gregory, James (author)

Core Title The development of Hollywood's relationship with the military: a guide for filmmakers and military entertainment liaison officers

School Annenberg School for Communication

Degree Master of Arts

Degree Program Strategic Public Relations

Publication Date 12/03/2008

Defense Date 11/03/2008

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag Entertainment,Hollywood,Military,movies,OAI-PMH Harvest

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Floto, Jennifer D. (committee chair), Durbin, Daniel (committee member), Saltzman, Joseph (committee member)

Creator Email gregojam@gmail.com,james.gregory6@us.army.mil

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m1861

Unique identifier UC1273419

Identifier etd-Gregory-2471 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-129466 (legacy record id),usctheses-m1861 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-Gregory-2471.pdf

Dmrecord 129466

Document Type Thesis

Rights Gregory, James

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Repository Name Libraries, University of Southern California

Repository Location Los Angeles, California

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu