"Blockbuster Propaganda: How the Military-Entertainment Complex shaped Hollywood”

During the Second World War, the United States created the Office of War Information (OWI) to connect the battlefront and civilian communities and had a unit dedicated exclusively to Hollywood which “revised or discarded anything that portrayed the U.S. unfavorably, including any material that made Americans seem ‘oblivious to the war or anti-war.’" 

Although the OWI was initially created to maintain the publics' support for the war effort and dispel discontent, in the post-war era, its guiding purpose has become more nefarious in the context of peace. 

In 1946, Elmer Davis, the head of the OWI, said: ”'The easiest way to inject a propaganda idea into most people's minds is to let it go through the medium of an entertainment picture when they do not realize they're being propagandized.’” To this day, this sentiment holds true. For the last eight decades, the U.S. The Department of Defense (DOD) has used Hollywood as the unofficial propaganda arm of the U.S. military– in a relationship often known as the Military-Entertainment Complex (MEC).

The MEC refers to the close relationship between the military and the entertainment industry, where the latter produces content that promotes the former's agenda and values in exchange for production assistance.  In Hollywood, “many movie and television productions are by choice, contractually supervised by the Department of Defense's (DoD's) Entertainment Media Unit.” In exchange for access to military equipment and locations that would be incredibly expensive or entirely unavailable to the public, the DOD can alter or remove unfavorable story lines or subjects in their scripts. This means that the DoD has a say in every US-made movie that uses DoD resources in their productions.

 The Department of Defense doesn’t hide this fact. They openly admit it on their own website:

“The Defense Department has a long-standing relationship with Hollywood [...] with a goal that’s two-fold: to accurately depict military stories and make sure sensitive information isn’t disclosed. [...] Production agreements require the DoD to be able to review a rough cut of a film, so officials can decide if there are areas that need to be addressed before a film is released.”

Screen Shot from the Department of Defense Website

The DOD, by virtue of their resources and power to “address” dimensions of films it deems problematic, has accumulated a significant level of influence over Hollywood. Over time, the American film industry's dependence on the DoD has converged to distort the portrayal of the military, certain conflicts and can even shape public opinion when intervention is appropriate. Films with favorable depictions are given the best materials, and as a result, the accuracy of the events on screen are altered and propagandized. 

While this cooperation is not forced upon movie studios, the ethics and constitutionality must be questioned – particularly given the number and the size of the films that are released under the MEC. In addition, the democratic implications must be questioned since the DoD directly influences the outcome of movie scripts (abridging freedom of speech) and uses public material (the Army's gear paid by the tax-payers) to grow its influence in the movie industry.

Blockbuster US movies co-scripted with the Department of Defense (Spy Culture, 2016)

From The Karate Kid Part III to Iron Man, DOD edited films aren’t limited to one specific genre or another. For instance, according to script notes obtained through Freedom of Information, Marvel’s Hulk (2003) was subject to “pretty radical script changes”, including changing the Hulk’s codename from “Ranch Hand” to “Angry Man.” Operation Ranch Hand refers to the campaign in which the U.S. dropped millions of gallons of herbicide over Vietnam, including the now-infamous Agent Orange.

As long as the Department of Defense has their arsenal of equipment, weapons, and locations and moviegoers yearn for the next grandest war epic while film studios hope to save money, the MEC is here to stay. 

Gerard Butler Speaking at the Pentagon speaking about his film “Hunter Killer”

So, what can be done to mitigate the dangers posed by this relationship? 

Given the potential concerns of public funds being used to influence media and speech, increasing transparency and public awareness about the influence of the military on the entertainment industry is necessary to mitigate the controlling and harmful effects. This can be achieved by requiring disclosure of any government funding or involvement in entertainment projects. A simple disclaimer at the start of the film would suffice– this would also help the audience engage with the themes of the film in a more transparent way. It would also promote a more critical interrogation of the film's subjects and, ideally, would inspire the viewer to research further into the historical details. 

An informed viewer can be a critical viewer. Mandatory disclosure highlighting DOD involvement is an important first step to let viewers make informed decisions and give them the opportunity to understand the potential for propaganda. 

While this is a widespread problem, a significant number of historically acclaimed films have been created without influence from the DOD, such as Apocalypse Now, Platoon, Catch-22, Full Metal Jacket, and Dr. Strangelove.

Next time you watch a film, entertain researching and exploring alternative options which have not been co-opted by the DOD. Using the Spy Culture list as an asset, you may find yourself learning something new in a refreshing and more engaging narrative. At the same time, you can help challenge the narrow but dominant narrative espoused by the DOD in favour of a more nuanced story.