
US military intelligence agencies have influenced over 1,800 movies and TV shows - nabla9
https://medium.com/insurge-intelligence/exclusive-documents-expose-direct-us-military-intelligence-influence-on-1-800-movies-and-tv-shows-36433107c307
======
fixermark
"The CIA even helped to make an episode of Top Chef that was hosted at
Langley, featuring then-CIA director Leon Panetta who was shown as having to
skip dessert to attend to vital business. Was this scene real, or was it a
dramatic statement for the cameras?"

Wow. Good work on the FOIA retrieval, but I'm utterly out on the hyperbolic
speculative tone. The editor undercuts the good journalism being done here
when they allow foolishness like this in.

I think the authors are also making the unsupported assumption that every
government / Hollywood cooperation incident is a propaganda op, instead of far
simpler explanations like "Joe in Langley publicity gets to brag to his family
that he made the Top Chef episode happen."

~~~
simias
I'm not much of a conspiracy nut but I don't have any issues with the excerpt
you quoted. Those "reality" TV shows are famously heavily scripted and edited,
it wouldn't surprise me at all if they did script the "skip dessert to attend
to vital business" to some degree. Maybe he did have to leave early because of
a scheduled meeting but it just didn't have the same ring to it?

Now you could say that it's not a big deal either way and I would tend to
agree but one could argue that there's a slippery slope when you muddy the
line between reality and fiction in the minds of the audience of a mass media.

~~~
tormeh
>Now you could say that it's not a big deal either way and I would tend to
agree but one could argue that there's a slippery slope when you muddy the
line between reality and fiction in the minds of the audience of a mass media.

In reality television that line has passed the horizon a while ago.

~~~
stuaxo
Where is the line? Some shows like The Only Way Is Essex in the UK was
confusing when it first came out, later on we found out it wasn't "reality
tv", but a new genre "curated reality".

~~~
oxide
I much preferred some of those Gordon Ramsay series UK versions. Ramsay's
Kitchen Nightmares was more akin to a documentary than the US version's on FOX
with its awful jumpy editing and constant music in the background. The TV
becomes more compelling when game show music isn't blaring and the focus is on
how to run a restaurant. Instead of only about family infighting.

The extra 5 or 6 mins helps a lot, nothing feels rushed to a conclusion like
US reality TV.

Another good one was Gordon's Great Escape. Documentary style reality tv works
so much better IMO.

~~~
stuaxo
Indeed, those are different things, the US kitchen nightmares being more about
the "people zoo" aspect.

------
gumby
The money and involvement have had quite an effect. Just look at the
percentage of combat films Hollywood makes and compare to 30 years ago. To go
by Hollywood the country is on a war footing.

And don't forget other entertainment industries like sports. The Pentagon paid
_millions_ of dollars a year just for cross promotion with NFL football (not
for recruitment advertising): "honor our troops" and the like.

On the other hand the "think for yourself" crowd... :-(

Edit: in changing "hundreds of thousands" into "millions" I ended up with
"hundreds of millions"

~~~
lotsofpulp
The ludicrous propaganda of military jet fly overs, national anthem
spectacles, huge flags, and people in the military standing on the side of the
field at private for profit sports game in a stadium paid for by taxpayers for
the team owner's benefit is hilarious.

~~~
cobookman
Why is that hilarious. The alternative would be a nation that's not behind
it's troops. The us would likely not be a super power. US citizens greatly
benefit off the super power status.

Seems like the military is acting in the citizens best interest.

~~~
gumby
What a scary statement.

First: you make a false dichotomy: one can be behind troops without a
hagiographic approach to discussing the military (or any subject). In fact the
best way to support troopers is to keep them out of harm's way. Consider WWII
in Europe: Eisenhower set the invasion a year later than the other allies
wanted in order to manage the supply chain better (supporting the troops)
_and_ to make sure the real bleeding of the enemy was done by non-US troops.
In terms of materiel and logistics, the US won the war in Europe; in terms of
fighting, the Russians unquestioningly did. Excellent call by the US if you
ask me.

Second: there are other means of being a superpower than military might (which
is only one tool in the toolbox....and as history has shown, usually not the
right one). If you don't criticize the military, how can you reasonably
discuss tradeoffs between military intervention / negotiation / economic
hegemony / ignoring the issue?

And I know it's just an HN comment, but the phrase "the military is acting in
the citizens best interest" is worrisome on its face: the military should be
under civilian control and thus acting in the interests the citizens have
_specified_. The military is the organization that should act in its own
interests _the least_ since it has the weapons.

------
atemerev
When I've been telling everyone that James Bond and other similar movies serve
the same role as military parades in Soviet-block countries, and heavily
scripted by the military, they told me that this is another conspiracy theory
and I must be plainly wrong.

I wasn't.

~~~
treebeard901
James Bond is essentially a franchise built around the psychological need to
cope with the collapse of the British empire and all of the associated loss of
status that goes with it.

In other words, you are correct, Bond movies do not try to hide their
nationalism. This is no great revelation.

~~~
subsubsub
I think you might be over estimating how much the British care about
having/not having an empire.

If you can get around the paywall, this might be worth a read:
[https://www.ft.com/content/a9c45baa-1dc6-11e7-b7d3-163f5a7f2...](https://www.ft.com/content/a9c45baa-1dc6-11e7-b7d3-163f5a7f229c)

~~~
cat199
> I think you might be over estimating how much the British care about
> having/not having an empire.

Even if the linked piece is correct (tending to agree somewhat), it is written
in a modern context with respect to Brexit. The James Bond novels were created
in the early 50's when the empire was still a real thing that was actually
breaking up, and before 'multiculturalism' was really a thing in any serious
way (see mid 60s-70s-80s for that). Not sure if I agree with the actual point
above, but the contexts are certainly different, an adult in early 50's
Britain certainly would need to psychologically adjust to a shifting national
identity, whether they cared for empire or not..

~~~
KineticLensman
The Bond novels do explore Britain's role in the world but for the readers
were also a tantalising glimpse into a post-austerity world following the
rationing and privations of WWII. Bond visits places (e.g. Monte Carlo,
Jamaica, etc) that seemed exotic at the time but would now be viewed as
'boring' by a gap year student. IMO, the Harry Palmer spy stories [1] (e.g.
The Impress Files) better reflect the cynical end of empire feeling.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Palmer](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Palmer)

------
specializeded
So in exchange for production support, DOD and IC reserve the right to back
out if certain topics are broached, or if they’re represented in a way they
don’t approve of.

The movies and tv shows come to them, and they’re subsequently influenced as
part of the deal.

Am I reading this correctly? They’ve really tried to make it scary but I’m
left feeling “well, yeah I guess that makes sense, sucks tho I guess”...

~~~
autokad
yeah exactly. also you didn't need a freedom of information act to know this.
I remember generals / DOD officials talking about it in a TV interviews (1996
independence day, 2007 transformers). directors are overly focused on realism
for better or for worse, so a lot also goes to providing stock footage for
inspiration, advice, and fact checking like 'is this aircraft meant for the
role its portrayed in the movie'. etc.

and as they said openly in the interviews: they often do it for free, but if
they dont like the content they will pull out.

~~~
fixermark
Speaking of Bay specifically: Bay is very pro-military and goes out of his way
to portray the US military in a positive light.

Observe the scene from Battleship where Lt. Col. Gregory Gadson, the director
of the U.S. Army's Wounded Warrior Program, was cast to play a double-amputee
soldier who, among other things, fist-fights an alien.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gMX3v6exVf8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gMX3v6exVf8)

~~~
nerfhammer
Michael Bay wasn't involved with Battleship, though it has been pointed out
that it seems to be an imitation of his style

~~~
fixermark
Wow, major egg on my face; thank you for the clarification!

I've actually been operating under the mistaken belief that Bay directed that
movie. It feels _incredibly_ Bay.

------
paganel
As a movie buff this doesn't surprise me at all. I'm still waiting for THE
movie about the US intervention in Iraq, the same kind of movies that
Apocalypse Now, "The Deer Hunter" and even Rambo I were for the Vietnam war. I
think my wait will be in vain.

~~~
rjsw
The Hurt Locker ?

~~~
Udik
I've found it to be a typical example of American propaganda.

Some good reasons given here: [http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-
militarization-of-hollywood...](http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-
militarization-of-hollywood-unlocking-the-hurt-locker/20910)

~~~
supernumerary
Considering Kathryn Bigelow, the director of 'the Hurt Locker', also did 'Zero
Dark Thirty' in many respects, the non plus ultra C.I.A control and influence
over hollywood, the 'Hurt Locker's' critical position is dubious. In fact it's
worth noting that the C.I.A is so good at this that they are not beyond
putting ostensibly damaging material or arguments in their films in order to
refute them at a more fundamental level, or coming around to devour them more
completely in some other film. As paranoid and wacky as it sounds, the general
project of propaganda is a totality spread across the cultural field...

Finally it's worth noting that with the advent of widespread piracy, we have
been forced to pay for our films / entertainment in other ways. A pirated
movie still delivers its ideological payload, whether or not it's corporate
interest determining the cars that feature in the 'Fast and Furious' franchise
or the military industrial complex permitting a flock of Ospreys to feature
prominently in a scene ...

------
austincheney
I like how the article failed to mention the most obvious example. The
military backed out support for the movie _Independence Day_ because they
didn't want to feed conspiracy nonsense about hiding aliens at area 51.

Clearly this is a propaganda effort to bend the truth into a lie..... right?

I also like how the article never mentioned military supported movies that
indicate dishonorable conduct like _Invisible War_ and _The General 's
Daughter_.

I think all these very obvious omissions were intentional because the article
is wanting to indicate some level of propaganda. Tipping its toe into the pool
of conspiracy foolishness.

* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independence_Day_(1996_film)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independence_Day_\(1996_film\))

* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Invisible_War](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Invisible_War)

* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_General%27s_Daughter_(film...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_General%27s_Daughter_\(film\))

EDIT:

I have rethought this comment (slow day at work). I do not mean to say the
article is completely invalid. The fact of the matter is that the military
holds trademarks over most of its common insignia, military bases are private
property, and its personnel are employees. It has the right to offer or
withhold any of its assets as it deems much like private entities.

That said the military has the right to disqualify commentary or stories
negatively without qualification. I believe the word for this is
disparagement. You can be negative about the military and still receive
military support, but it must be qualified.

My personal opinion on the matter is the military does shape how it is
perceived by the public through entertainment. It does shape that narrative.
This has the potential to hint at, though very lightly, something resembling
propaganda but I strongly believe this is not the intent.

If the public wanted the most accurate and realistic portrayal of the military
they would receive their view of that world from journalism or documentaries.
This isn't want the public generally wants though. They want entertainment and
all the suspended disbelief that comes with it. If you believe this is unfair
then choose books as your source of fiction on military interests, which don't
appear to have any such manipulation.

In full disclosure I am a warrant officer in the US Army.

~~~
malchow
Agree. Not to mention the most obvious point: actual military cooperation
hasn't been needed –– not in many years –– in order to show giant explosions,
cool jets, or slick military bases.

I don't think I've ever read a FOIA-based article with a worse signal to noise
ratio.

I hope the authors, who are based in London and Bath, find something worth
writing about soon or they may go insane from CIA BRAIN WAVES.

------
dsfyu404ed
Three thoughts on this article:

IMO the author fails to draw the connection to decades of cop shows teaching
people that it's ok for cops to break procedure left and right because that's
how work gets done.

The bit on military suicide make sense. The more you talk about something the
more acceptable it becomes. It makes sense that people who's job is to
influence opinion don't want to talk about it.

Technical and subject matter advisors from "industry" aren't worthless.
Terrorists in Hollywood movies have been taking batteries out of cell phones
when not in use since the early 2000s.

------
visarga
I am sure "24" was pure propaganda. And "West Wing". I enjoyed them though, at
the time. But now they would just revolt me.

~~~
mistermann
I never watched west wing, how did it seem like propoganda, and what message
did it send?

~~~
michaelt
I'm not the person you're replying to but one thing I've seen pointed out [1]
is that it portrays a largely unelected whitehouse staff where everyone is
selfless, good, hard-working, quick-witted, reveres the constitution, always
ultimately putting the country's interests before their own, always taking the
moral choice and turning out to be right.

There's nothing that makes you question the way the country is run, or that
tries to explain why real-world politicians' approval ratings are so low.

[1]
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3OQIp4lda8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3OQIp4lda8)

~~~
talmand
Also the endless monologues where the speaker is just so correct that no one
can dare question what they are saying and the target of the monologue is left
speechless with just how wrong they were.

Same thing happened with The Newsroom, it's a Sorkin trademark. Although the
heavy-handedness was relaxed with season two.

------
nabla9
As a way to spread propaganda these efforts are probably as good as they can
be in liberal democracy. The methods are subtly directing the "sentiment" and
removing unwanted issues without trace. They are not trying to hammer ideology
too obviously.

If you want to see clear modern US military propaganda film that reaches the
pinnacle of Nazi wartime propaganda (not that obvious propaganda like "The
Eternal Jew", but highest quality epic and inspiring movies with strongly
embedded sentiment) you should watch Act of Valor (2012)
[http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1591479/](http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1591479/)
The only problem with the Act of Valor is that it's not very good movie. The
delivery of propaganda in the movie is perfect. It leaves you feeling the same
way as the Nazi movie Kolberg (1945)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolberg_(film)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolberg_\(film\))

------
symmetricsaurus
This is an absurd situation, having a military minder that tells you what you
can and can't say in a production. It is hard to avoid some kind of
interference if you want to borrow military equipment though. There is always
some standard that you want to uphold that is probably higher than what is
allowed by the first amendment.

The solution is to not allow the military to lend any assistance to movie
productions. Frankly, it's not their job anyways. This is the only way to
avoid the kind of influence described in the article.

~~~
cat199
> The solution is to not allow the military to lend any assistance to movie
> productions. Frankly, it's not their job anyways. This is the only way to
> avoid the kind of influence described in the article.

Unfortunately this 'solution' doesnt facilitate the foreign effect from
distributing these films abroad to spread positive american sentiment and
further the goals of the US govt _and_ Hollywood _and_ corporations (product
placment for starters, mindshare, etc), so it is 'inferior'..

~~~
azinman2
The article is poorly written so I can’t tell what’s real and what’s not, but
it seems to imply that people go to the military asking for “toys” (article is
very non-specific here), and that’s part of the deal. It doesn’t seem to imply
somehow the military is censoring all films made in the US.

------
bamboozled
As a teenager I was always watching action films, because my father loves
them. I remember at around age 21 thinking, "This just seems like tasteless
propaganda and I don't want to watch it"...

------
purplejacket
What I really want to know is: How was it that Neo's passport expiration date
was 9/11/2001 -- [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Neo-
Passport.png](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Neo-Passport.png)

~~~
ovulator
It was issued on 12 Sep 1991. US passports expire after ten years.

------
pupppet
Finally an explanation for why Michael Bay keeps getting work.

~~~
fixermark
There's a very good film critique dissection of Bay's work done by Lindsay
Ellis titled "The Whole Plate"
([https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLJGOq3JclTH8J73o2Z4VM...](https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLJGOq3JclTH8J73o2Z4VMaSYZDNG3xeZ7)).
She uses Bay as a lens to talk about film studies for a couple of reasons; one
of them is that there is no doubt the guy's movies are raking it in, so film
theory both highlights what he's doing that's working and---when film theory
suggests "What he does should not work"\---provides interesting counter-
examples to the standard rules.

(Note that while you're not wrong, it's not ultimately the US government
buying all those movie tickets ;) ).

------
robert_foss
American propaganda is alive and well.

------
yequalsx
It's the news too. Almost every article or TV news report on TSA screening
includes someone saying how the security theater is worth it because it keeps
us safe.

------
fwdpropaganda
Finally! I've been saying for years "The largest propaganda machine in the
world is Hollywood." People usually just roll their eyes.

~~~
fixermark
The America of "Snow Crash" has as its primary exports software and culture,
via Hollywood.

It seems to continue to be an apropos prediction.

~~~
jerrylives
No it's not. Software is not even in the top ten of US exports

~~~
buttcoinslol
iOS, Android, Facebook, Snapchat, Whatsapp, etc are all software...

~~~
jerrylives
Okay.
So?[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_exports_of_the_United_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_exports_of_the_United_States)

------
mirimir
I wonder about _Conspiracy Theory_ and the CIA's Project MKUltra. Did the CIA
manipulate it? Or somehow not have the opportunity?

~~~
talmand
I would think such things are OK because if people saw it in a fictional movie
that doesn't say "based on true events" at the beginning they may be inclined
to believe it didn't really happen.

~~~
mirimir
Maybe. But MKUltra was mentioned by name, and the methods portrayed were quite
gruesome.

------
youdontknowtho
I remember back when the bush administration gave the TV show JAG, a show
about the navy's judge advocate general's office, detailed descriptions of the
military tribunals that they came up with...before the media or congress.

Shady, man. The military and IC are the only parts of govt that get to do this
weird Public Relations. They shouldn't be able to.

~~~
hindsightbias
It's not just the military/IC.

The first episode (2010) of Blue Bloods (NYPD show) has Donnie Wahlberg
torturing a guy in a ticking-time-bomb-like scenario and then his Capt. father
(Tom Selleck) correcting his DA daughters reference to "torture" by seriously
saying "you mean Enhanced Interrogation" and how awful it is they can't
convict the guy without some other "legal" break in the case.

Even years after Bush & Cheney are gone, "liberal" Hollywood filled with this
stuff.

------
mowenz
If this was China or Russia, our media would point and scold, calling them
names and declaring them immoral, and the enemy.

However, since it's the US, I doubt this will get much coverage in mainstream
media outlets here.

------
coldtea
Most major movies are, if not "CONSUME", "OBEY", etc billboards (like in "They
Live"), at least party-line affairs promoting the establishment.

Between promoting the prevalent mores (instead of criticizing them), military
manipulation to promote "national interests" like in TFA, product placements,
and plots for your inner 13 year old in movies for 40 year olds, with the rare
exception it's a long way since the 60s-70s and films like "The Network",
"Apocalypse Now" and the rest..

~~~
dragonwriter
“The Network” and “Apocalypse Now” were, and are remembered now because they
were, rare exceptions in their own time as well.

~~~
cuckcuckspruce
This is an example of the filter effect. It's like how people turn on the
classic rock station where they play only classic rock hits and assume that
music today is just worse - the classic rock station doesn't play the stinkers
that were also on the radio and popular, so you get the illusion that classic
rock has always been solid gold hits.

~~~
coldtea
> _This is an example of the filter effect._

Yeah, no. There was a big counter-establishment wave in the 60s and early to
mid 70s, documented in myriads of books, articles, biographies, documentaries
and such.

And it reflected in Hollywood too.

(In European cinema it was even more extreme with every second movie having
leftist leanings).

Were there other, more typical/banal movies? Yes. But that critical movies
were far more common in the 60s-70s than they are now is a historical fact,
not some "filter effect".

(Also the idea that all periods have the same median quality in arts and same
distribution of tendencies is wrong. Some periods do have more/better art than
others, or more art of a certain tendency than others, for various reasons).

------
touristtam
Yet no mention of Wag the Dog.

------
tracker1
IIRC, the movie "Wargames" rejected a DOD plot request, and had to do without
any support for even external base footage for the film.

------
silveira
With use of computer graphics they can do more movies without the military
interference.

~~~
Cthulhu_
Can they? Isn't the depiction of (real / existing) military hardware protected
by idk, trademarks and the like? I mean all bets are off if it's all fantasy
weaponry and organizations (like idk, in Starship Troopers).

~~~
MagnumOpus
No it is not. The depiction of branded assets is fair game. Mentioning the
branded goods is also fair game, but more dangerous because in some cases it
might be construed as slander and slander is actionable grounds for a lawsuit.
(Famously, LVMH sued Warner Bros successfully when they used a _fake_ LV
handbag as a prop and a character said "This is a Louis Vuitton".)

------
golergka
So, if you want DOD support and resources and voluntarily go to them for help,
they will have a say in the script?

To me it seems that anti-establishment Americans are so eager to find evidence
of "censorship", "police state" and "tyranny" that they forget what do these
words actually mean.

~~~
neurotech1
DoD policy is to "approve" scripts for movies that request DoD assistance, and
has been for a long time.

Production companies are free to get another countries' military to provide
assets under different terms. The French and Israeli military have provided
filming support for US movies before.

------
krasicki
Rotten Tomatoes

------
aurora-
Its not secret, if you want to use the pentagons toys and personnel and
facilities then they have to have script approval and will make suggestions if
they don't approve. And those suggestions make the film a recruitment tool and
propaganda mouthpiece. They request positive depictions of the military, the
military solving the problems, etc.

I have also noticed they tend to carry a negative depiction of the other
civilian branches of the government especially the CIA, "they made the
problem/they tied our hands and now we gotta clean it up" seems a consistent
theme.

------
johnpython
America's infatuation with their military is disgusting

------
mi100hael
_> Jon Voight in Transformers — in this scene, just after American troops have
been attacked by a Decepticon robot, Pentagon Hollywood liaison Phil Strub
inserted the line ‘Bring em home’, granting the military a protective,
paternalistic quality, when in reality the DOD does quite the opposite._

So glad the authors were able to stay objective and emotionally removed from
the subject /s

------
api
All nations have propaganda, USA included. I'm not sure why anyone is
surprised by this.

