Should the U.S. Military use Hollywood Productions as Propaganda to Influence Young Generations? “Hollywood movies are the most efficient medium to reach the widest audience and shape the mindset of the American youth” (Zhakowa 3). This means that Hollywood productions have the power to change people’s minds. According to Oleg Zhakova, “the Department of Defense can provide support to a feature film if it benefits the military or is in the national interest. One of the four requirements to receiving DoD support is the film’s potential to enhance recruiting” (2). Thus, if there is a positive military portrayal in a Hollywood film, then the film has the potential to enhance recruitment. Whether Hollywood productions are military propaganda
…show more content…
military and Hollywood films shows that there is long history of cooperation between the Pentagon and Hollywood. Both take advantage of each other. For example, the Pentagon allows filmmakers the use of advanced military equipment for filming. In return, the filmmakers producing war movies give their transcripts to the Department of Defense (DOD) for approval (Gregory 1). For example, the Department of Dense helped the movie Wings win Best Picture at the first Oscar award in 1927 (Zakarin 5). However, this cooperative relationship between movie makers and the military has changed. At the end of the World War II, most of the motion pictures about war were approved by the Pentagon because of the excellent image the military had in these scripts---“the Pentagon was mainly dealing with requests to provide assistance to films depicting the military in a positive light” (Zhakova 6). However, the Vietnam War depictions were different: many scripts portrayed a negative image of the U.S. military in which the U.S. army operated as a “killing machine” to achieve the peace in Vietnam. This caused the DoD to start to selectively approve the scripts that only showed a positive image of the military. It rejected scripts that distorted the image of the military (Zhakova …show more content…
There are many films and posters with glorified images of the soldiers from the first and second world wars. They were created to convince people, especially young men, to go to war for their country and convey the idea that being a soldier is glorious. According to Clayton Odie Sheffiel, a CISAC senior military fellow representing the U.S. Army (2010-2011), “the lack of reality in early war pictures stems from the lack of reality in the pre-media-hyped audience’s vision of war. The lack of reality also coincided with the inability of studios to replicate the dramatic scenes that accompany war” (143). The filmmakers also educate people by using some non-combat movies. According to Jeanine Basinger in her book The World War II Combat Film: Anatomy of a Genre, she argues that the film Winds of the Navy is “a textbook on the machinery that can be used for war, and on what military aviation is like at the time” (102). This means that young people are educated through motion pictures about war and new technology. These kinds of motion pictures not only create a fantasy of war, but also attract teens interested in engaging in war. During World War II, American citizens believed that their “military services [were] a glorious invincible force capable of protecting [them] under any circumstances and protecting national security interests all around the globe” (Zhakova 5). This
military and Hollywood films shows that there is long history of cooperation between the Pentagon and Hollywood. Both take advantage of each other. For example, the Pentagon allows filmmakers the use of advanced military equipment for filming. In return, the filmmakers producing war movies give their transcripts to the Department of Defense (DOD) for approval (Gregory 1). For example, the Department of Dense helped the movie Wings win Best Picture at the first Oscar award in 1927 (Zakarin 5). However, this cooperative relationship between movie makers and the military has changed. At the end of the World War II, most of the motion pictures about war were approved by the Pentagon because of the excellent image the military had in these scripts---“the Pentagon was mainly dealing with requests to provide assistance to films depicting the military in a positive light” (Zhakova 6). However, the Vietnam War depictions were different: many scripts portrayed a negative image of the U.S. military in which the U.S. army operated as a “killing machine” to achieve the peace in Vietnam. This caused the DoD to start to selectively approve the scripts that only showed a positive image of the military. It rejected scripts that distorted the image of the military (Zhakova …show more content…
There are many films and posters with glorified images of the soldiers from the first and second world wars. They were created to convince people, especially young men, to go to war for their country and convey the idea that being a soldier is glorious. According to Clayton Odie Sheffiel, a CISAC senior military fellow representing the U.S. Army (2010-2011), “the lack of reality in early war pictures stems from the lack of reality in the pre-media-hyped audience’s vision of war. The lack of reality also coincided with the inability of studios to replicate the dramatic scenes that accompany war” (143). The filmmakers also educate people by using some non-combat movies. According to Jeanine Basinger in her book The World War II Combat Film: Anatomy of a Genre, she argues that the film Winds of the Navy is “a textbook on the machinery that can be used for war, and on what military aviation is like at the time” (102). This means that young people are educated through motion pictures about war and new technology. These kinds of motion pictures not only create a fantasy of war, but also attract teens interested in engaging in war. During World War II, American citizens believed that their “military services [were] a glorious invincible force capable of protecting [them] under any circumstances and protecting national security interests all around the globe” (Zhakova 5). This