Film Culture and Covertly Militarized Cinema

Most of us are familiar with the slurry of political, highly militaristic films from the era of the Cold War. From Dr. Strangelove to The War of the Worlds, filmmakers and audiences alike bent over backward in that tense political climate to condemn or justify the United States’ use of nuclear weapons. Similarly, we’ve all seen the post-9/11 disaster movies and impassioned documentaries, expressing high-strung patriotism and often xenophobic fears over terrorism.

In the modern era, most films (and nearly all blockbusters) have taken on more of an apolitical tone. Typically, whether they’re going to see an action, comedy, or superhero movie, audiences expect a fun, more or less culturally neutral experience. That is, most of the time, they don’t expect much commentary on or in relation to the real world.

Unfortunately for neutrality, money talks, and few entities have more money than the U.S. military. In an open secret, though more open since a FOIA document confirmed it, the Department of Defense and CIA have had a covert voice in cinema for nearly as long as cinema has existed. This influence ripples through film and even pop culture and can manipulate commonly held ideas and perspectives, especially in media for children and adolescents.

Flattery Will Get You Everywhere

As obtained by a journalist and scholar through the Freedom of Information Act, the Department of Defense has fiscally supported over 800 films in its lifetime — many recent — and over 900 television shows just since 2005. The CIA has supported a comparatively meager 60 combined film and television shows, though some quite mainstream. This information is apparently so banal that there’s even a TV Tropes page for it.

The DoD and CIA may not directly fund films that flatter the U.S. military (though sometimes they do), but they offer heavily discounted and sometimes free equipment and other production assistance. The catch is a simple matter of final script approval, facilitated by the Pentagon’s entertainment liaison. This can involve ensuring positive depictions of military and government personnel, altering scenes that diverge from official stated government positions, and removing content that shows unethical behavior by authority figures.

Coerced Cooperation

Films relating to the military or needing to use such equipment at all are highly incentivized to work with the Department of Defense, as its heavily discounted loans in exchange for script approval can be vital to a production budget. Films that refuse to negotiate can be forced backward or even to a halt in production, given the high expense of visual effects. As Business Insider writes, Pentagon-funded Man of Steel spent less than $1 million of its $225 million budget on military equipment.

Other films influenced by the DoD or CIA include Iron Man, Captain Marvel, Top Gun, and several James Bond films. Zero Dark Thirty, a particularly egregious example about the search for Osama bin Laden, was substantially changed to accommodate this cooperation. Among removed scenes (many of which involved agent misconduct or excessive torture) was a depiction of a dog used to interrogate a prisoner, adhering to the CIA stance that such methods do not exist. According to the CIA, the filmmakers made sure that they would be “absolutely comfortable” with the film.

There are also plenty of non-military films that have utilized this sponsorship, like Ferris Bueller’s Day Off, The Silence of the Lambs, and Hello Dolly. Even Sleepless in Seattle made the cut. You can download the whole list here, which includes a healthy chunk of superhero and blockbuster cinema dating well through the last century.

Some films not funded by the Pentagon include critical successes such as Platoon and Apocalypse Now. However, the plentiful and cheap resources available only with the approval of the DoD or CIA ensure that it is much more financially challenging to make a film critical of the military or government than one which allows them to define their own portrayal.

Consuming Critically

As FAIR notes, U.S. military-backed media demonstrates the “superiority of their country’s values and war-fighting ability,” a message unnervingly similar to what American authority dubs shameless propaganda in other countries. Especially given the lack of transparency in this support, audiences can end up unknowingly viewing government-sponsored and altered stories intended to convey specific, not-necessarily-accurate messages.

These messages, in turn, permeate pop culture. The popular perception is constantly shaped by media, and especially by mainstream hits like Transformers and Captain Marvel, neither of which seems particularly political.

While advertising is heavily regulated and prominently disclosed in the media it sponsors, it is quite shocking that this federal influence is not. Many of these altered films are in fact targeted at youth, for whom something like advertising is even more strictly regulated due to the demographic’s still-developing discernment skills.

As film viewers and critics, it is more important than ever for us to be aware of this invisible bias in film and TV. It is difficult but vital to be able to determine the perspectives present in media, who is behind the stories depicted, and how those stories differ from reality. We must be aware of the perspectives which we, and many others, consider “neutral,” so that we can create and critique honest, transparent, and challenging art.

Are your favorite films on this list? What perspectives do you see in the media you watch? Let us know in the comments!

You can download the lists of films funded by the Department of Defense, as obtained through FOIA, here. The 2014 and 2016 lists differ somewhat, but the files are both available.