WHY HOLLYWOOD's MASS PRODUCED MILITARY PROPAGANDA FILMS DAMAGES THE PUBLIC & MILITARY PSYCHE.

 https://www.reddit.com/r/Radical_America_by_AG/comments/1o14f1v/how_hollywoods_mass_produced_military_propaganda

WHY HOLLYWOOD's MASS PRODUCED MILITARY PROPAGANDA
FILMS DAMAGES THE PUBLIC & MILITARY PSYCHE.

THE BILLIONS OF DOLLARS SPENT USA & CHINA

While not all films from Hollywood are propaganda, the ones that are can inflict significant damage on the public by promoting harmful stereotypes, normalizing violence, distorting reality, and eroding critical thinking. Historically and in modern times, Hollywood has been criticized for using persuasive storytelling to advance a specific agenda, whether it is for political entities, the military, or a commercial enterprise.

Psychological and social damage
Propaganda films cause damage on a psychological and social level by influencing public perception in misleading ways.

Perpetuating harmful stereotypes: Films, particularly those with military backing, have historically reinforced racist and xenophobic views. During the Cold War, films often villainized communists, while post-9/11 movies frequently stereotype Arabs and Muslims as terrorists. For instance, critics have cited the film American Sniper for helping to fuel a rise in Islamophobia.

Encouraging racism and white supremacy: The film industry has a long history of depicting minority groups in a dangerous or inferior light. In the early 20th century, a primarily white, upper/middle-class audience was fed racist undertones in film, with monsters often representing society's repressed racial fears.

Creating "us vs. them" narratives: Propaganda fosters a sense of ingroup loyalty by demonizing an "other". It employs rhetorical tools that make viewers sympathize with characters aligned with the desired agenda and loathe their supposed enemies. This creates and deepens societal polarization.

Glorifying violence and war: Films that feature extensive military cooperation, like Top Gun, have been criticized as thinly veiled recruitment tools that romanticize war. By focusing on heroics, these films minimize the real-life brutality and human cost of warfare. Studies suggest that high exposure to violent content can increase aggressive behavior in viewers.

Distortion of reality
Propaganda films intentionally blur the lines between reality and fiction, which can have long-lasting effects on how a society views itself and others.

Misleading the public: By selectively presenting information, these films can create a distorted version of reality that aligns with a specific political or ideological agenda.

Fabricating history: Films like Argo have been criticized for presenting a heavily curated and inaccurate account of historical events to glorify institutions like the CIA. Zero Dark Thirty was accused of legitimizing unethical post-9/11 interrogation methods.
Manipulating emotions: Filmmakers use powerful emotional techniques, such as stirring music and compelling imagery, to sway audiences and bypass rational thought. As filmmaker Elmer Davis once noted, "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 that they are being propagandized".

Undermining critical thinking
The use of subtle, persistent messaging erodes the public's ability to think critically about media and the world around them.
Cultivating uncritical acceptance: By repeatedly exposing audiences to a biased narrative, propaganda films can make it more difficult for the public to question the message. When individuals are constantly immersed in a specific narrative, their ability to imagine other truths diminishes.

Fostering cynicism and despair: For those who become aware of the manipulation, the constant flood of misleading narratives can lead to despair, cynicism, and a feeling of powerlessness.
Normalizing corporate or state influence: Longstanding cooperation between Hollywood and the US government, especially the Pentagon, means that taxpayers are subsidizing propaganda disguised as entertainment. This symbiotic relationship enables indirect censorship, as the military can refuse support for productions that don't align with their preferred narrative.

Hollywood's collaboration with the military damages the psyche by normalizing war, manipulating emotions through simplified narratives, and perpetuating harmful stereotypes, which desensitizes audiences and distorts their understanding of conflict. These films, created with direct Pentagon support, serve as propaganda that impacts both civilians and service members.
Normalization and glorification of war

The mass production of military films frames conflict as exciting, patriotic, and even glamorous, overshadowing the human cost.
Glamorizes violence: Action-oriented storytelling focuses on heroism and explosions while downplaying the brutality and trauma of combat. By making conflict entertaining, it normalizes war as an admirable part of American life.

Obscures consequences: The reality of civilian casualties, moral ambiguities, and the long-term devastation caused by warfare are often ignored or glossed over. This sanitized view creates a misshapen public perception of what war is truly like.
Promotes American exceptionalism: Films with Pentagon support often frame U.S. military intervention as an unquestionably positive force in the world. This narrative discourages the public from questioning foreign policy choices.

Emotional and cognitive manipulation
Propaganda films use psychological tactics to influence the audience's emotional state and shape their understanding of reality.
-* * * * ** * * * * *
Emotional appeals: Stirring music, patriotic imagery, and relatable character portrayals are used to evoke strong feelings of pride, anger, or fear. When emotions are engaged, critical thinking becomes clouded, and viewers are more likely to accept the filmmaker's biased message.

Narrative entrapment: Repeatedly exposing an audience to a particular narrative can shape their identity and worldview, creating an "us vs. them" mindset. This fosters social polarization and makes it difficult for people to accept alternative perspectives.
Confirmation bias: Audiences are susceptible to cognitive biases, such as confirmation bias, which makes them favor information that aligns with their existing beliefs. Propaganda leverages this by presenting a selective, one-sided view of conflicts.

Harmful stereotyping and dehumanization
The "us vs. them" narrative of military films often relies on stereotyping and dehumanizing certain groups to build support for military action.

Dehumanizing the enemy: Portraying the enemy as cruel and inhuman evokes strong emotional responses, such as hatred and fear. This dehumanization makes it easier to justify military violence against perceived adversaries.

Perpetuates stereotypes: Historical analysis shows that many military-backed films have stereotyped specific groups, such as Arabs and Muslims, often portraying them as terrorists. These portrayals promote prejudice and misrepresent diverse populations.

Damage to service members and veterans
For military personnel and veterans, consuming military-themed content can have a direct negative impact on their mental health.
Distorted expectations: Recruitment-focused films can present a distorted view of military life to new service members. This can lead to disillusionment when they face the complex reality of combat and military culture.

Triggering trauma: For veterans, scenes depicting combat can trigger painful memories and exacerbate symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), survivor's guilt, and anxiety. One veteran noted that watching a military movie felt like "they take post-traumatic stress and they set it right in your lap".

Misrepresenting mental health: While some films feature veterans dealing with struggles, they often portray mental health conditions inaccurately, leading to further stigmatization. A military-funded documentary on soldiers' mental anguish was even confiscated to suppress information about the psychological toll of war.

* * * * * * * * * * * **

The relationship between the military and filmmaking industries, particularly for the USA, is highly complex, deeply institutionalized, and often described as a "military-entertainment complex." For NATO, the UK, and the EU, the influence is less centrally documented but still present, often as a component of the broader US-dominated cultural sphere.

The complexity stems from the mutually beneficial exchange where the military provides essential production resources and technical advice, and the film industry, in return, projects a narrative that supports the military's strategic goals, public image, and recruitment efforts.

🇺🇸 USA: The Military-Entertainment Complex
The relationship between the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) and Hollywood is the most extensive and formalized example of a military-entertainment complex.

Formal Oversight and Script Vetting
Access-for-Approval: Production companies often approach the DoD's Entertainment Media Office for access to invaluable assets like fighter jets, aircraft carriers, military bases, and personnel (which are otherwise prohibitively expensive or impossible to obtain).

Script Control: In exchange for this support, filmmakers must submit their scripts for vetting and editorial control. The DoD has the right to demand script changes to ensure the final product aligns with their objectives, accurately depicts military life (from the DoD's perspective), and avoids disclosing sensitive information.

Incentivizing Positive Portrayals: This mechanism indirectly incentivizes studios to create films that portray the US military in a positive, heroic, and justified light, as a negative or critical portrayal would likely result in the denial of essential resources and support, effectively killing high-budget projects.

Scale of Influence: Research suggests the Pentagon and CIA have exercised editorial control over more than 2,500 films and television shows since the 1940s.

Strategic Objectives
The DoD's main goals in this collaboration include:

Recruitment: Films like Top Gun: Maverick are cited as clear examples of entertainment boosting enlistment.

Public Relations: Shaping public perception to enhance trust, support for military operations, and justify defense spending.

Propaganda/Soft Power: Utilizing cinema as a powerful cultural tool to reinforce the narrative of "American exceptionalism" and moral righteousness on the global stage.

🇬🇧 UK, 🇪🇺 EU, and 🌍 Global Context
While the US-Hollywood dynamic is unique in its scale and formalization, similar relationships exist or are influenced globally:

UK Ministry of Defence (MOD): The MOD maintains similar liaison units to support film and TV productions. While potentially less voluminous than the DoD's, the principle of providing equipment and access in exchange for script cooperation remains a common practice in modern media production.

EU and NATO's Cultural Role: The focus for institutions like NATO and the EU is often less about direct logistical support for national film industries and more about strategic communication and soft power.

NATO has engaged directly with Hollywood screenwriters on "study trips" to help them gain insight into the organization and develop a forward-looking story that resonates with allied publics. This aims to communicate the alliance's value and purpose to a wider audience.

The concept of a "military-civilian-industrial complex (MCIC)" has been introduced in the European context to describe the blurring of military, industrial, and commercial civilian interests in defense and security, of which media is an increasingly relevant component.

Other Nations: The pattern of the military/government collaborating with the local entertainment industry for narrative control and nationalistic portrayals is not limited to the West. For instance, the Indian government's relationship with Bollywood has included financial and logistical support for military-related movies that align with official foreign policy.

The complexity of the relationship lies in the blurred line between logistical necessity (filmmakers need realistic, costly equipment) and propagandistic influence (the military demands narrative control for public opinion).

The YouTube video on "Hollywood Goes to NATO" is relevant because it directly addresses the efforts of a major intergovernmental organization like NATO to engage with the Hollywood filmmaking community to shape the alliance's public narrative.

Hollywood Goes to NATO: Building the Story of the Alliance

Hollywood Goes to NATO: Building the Story of the Alliance - YouTube
Center for Strategic & International Studies · 693 views

How detailed is this and how much money is spent? and made related to films related to the military. all over the world

The involvement of military organizations, particularly the US Department of Defense (DoD) and other global defense forces, in filmmaking is extensive, affecting both the creative control and the financial dynamics of the productions.

Here is a breakdown of the detail of the script review process and the money involved:

I. Detail of Military Script Review and Influence (Primarily US DoD)
The US Department of Defense (DoD) has an Entertainment Liaison Office that reviews scripts for films and television programs that request military cooperation, such as access to equipment, bases, or personnel. This process is highly detailed and often results in script changes, essentially giving the DoD editorial control.

The Vetting Process:

Request for Support: The process begins when a filmmaker requests substantial military resources (e.g., aircraft carriers, fighter jets, tanks, large numbers of personnel).

Script Submission: The production company must submit the script to the DoD's Entertainment Liaison Office.

Decision to Support: The DoD then decides whether to offer support based on whether the script aligns with the military's interests and portrayal guidelines. Scripts "at odds with military interests" are denied support.

Mandated Changes/Censorship: If the script is deemed acceptable for cooperation, the DoD often requests changes to be made.

These changes go beyond just ensuring technical accuracy (correct military language, equipment use).

The military uses its leverage to scrub or alter elements that negatively portray the US military, such as war crimes, corruption, racism, sexual assault, or treason.

Examples of Changes: In Top Gun, the love interest was changed from an enlisted woman (which would violate Navy rules) to a civilian contractor. In the James Bond film Goldeneye, a US Navy traitor was changed to a member of the French Navy.

Consequence of Refusal: Filmmakers who refuse to make the requested changes are denied all assistance, forcing them to either shoot without the expensive, authentic equipment and locations or abandon the project.

Goal of the Review: While the DoD states its goal is "to tell an accurate story," critics argue the process amounts to pervasive censorship and propaganda to promote positive narratives, recruitment, and the military-industrial complex.

II. Money: Cost of Military Support and Film Revenue
A. The Cost/Subsidy of Military Support
The actual dollar amount the US military "spends" annually on supporting film and TV is not a clear, single budget line, but the value of the resources provided acts as a significant subsidy for production companies.

Free or Low-Cost Equipment: Studios primarily seek DoD cooperation because it grants them access to incredibly expensive military hardware at low or no cost, which would otherwise be astronomically high.

The True Cost: The cost of operating an aircraft carrier can be $6 million to $8 million per day. A single F-35 fighter jet costs over $80 million to purchase.

Studio Savings: By partnering with the DoD, filmmakers can get these assets "at cost" or simply for operational fees. For example, the use of military apparatuses in a film like Man of Steel (with a reported $225 million budget) cost the production less than $1 million.

The Unquantified Benefit: The value of this free/subsidized access to hardware, personnel, and training is massive, reducing production costs significantly and making certain realistic military spectacles virtually impossible without cooperation.

B. Global Film Revenue
Military-themed films, including war movies and military-supported action films, are major box office earners globally.

US-Supported Films (Examples): The 2022 film Top Gun: Maverick (which received US Navy support) grossed over $1.49 billion worldwide.

Highest-Grossing War Films (Worldwide): The top-grossing war films globally show a strong market for the genre, with the list often dominated by films from multiple countries, most recently Chinese productions:

The Battle at Lake Changjin (China): Over $902 million worldwide.

Wolf Warrior 2 (China): Over $870 million worldwide (action/military).

The Battle at Lake Changjin II (China): Over $626 million worldwide.

Operation Red Sea (China): Over $579 million worldwide.

American Sniper (US): Over $547 million worldwide.

These figures illustrate the massive commercial success and global appeal of military-themed cinema, which is why access to authentic military support—whether from the US or other governments—is such a high-value commodity for filmmakers.

Find the financial detail combine and add as much Financial detail as possible.

Google Search
The financial details regarding the relationships between the US military (Department of Defense - DoD) and Hollywood, and China's government/military influence on film, encompass several key areas:

1. US Military (DoD) Assistance to Hollywood Productions
The primary financial arrangement between the DoD and Hollywood is the provision of military assets for filming, which offers a significant financial incentive to studios by reducing production costs.

Free or Low-Cost Equipment/Resources (Effective Subsidy): Studios collaborate with the Pentagon to receive what is essentially a subsidy in the form of free or low-cost use of military equipment and filming locations.

Cost of Assets: Acquiring or operating military assets, such as jets, battleships, and tanks, would otherwise be astronomically high, often exceeding the total budget of a typical film or TV series.

A single F-35 fighter jet costs over $80 million.

An aircraft carrier like the USS Gerald R. Ford cost US taxpayers approximately $13.3 billion, with daily operational costs running into the millions of dollars.

In comparison, the typical budget for a war movie ranges from $50 million to $100 million.

Reimbursement Policy: Officially, assistance is provided at "no additional expense to the Government and taxpayers" (i.e., in excess of costs DoD would have otherwise incurred). The production company is required to reimburse the DoD for operations, maintenance, supply, and equipment costs incurred as a consequence of providing support for individual productions.

Uncompensated Costs (Implied Subsidy): Despite the reimbursement policy, using military equipment for a film like Top Gun: Maverick is still drastically cheaper than normal advertising and recruitment methods. The DoD is often seen as not being correctly compensated for costs like F/A-18 flight hours, effectively making the support a bargain deal and a form of recruitment advertising that saves taxpayer money compared to other methods.

DoD Program Costs (Administration): The DoD Entertainment Media Office and the military services' entertainment liaison offices coordinate this support.

Annual Requests: The DoD currently receives approximately 200 requests for non-Government, entertainment-oriented media production assistance annually.

Government Review Cost: The total estimated cost to the Federal Government to review these requests for support is relatively small, estimated to be $$6,892 per year (based on a 2023 hourly rate of $45.95 for a GS-12 employee).

Other Financial Interactions:

In 2023, the Pentagon paid TV studios to integrate military-friendly messaging into widely watched TV programs, including shows with hosts like Kelly Clarkson and others.

2. Chinese Government/Military Influence on Film
China leverages its massive film market and government funding to exert financial and political influence over global cinema, including Hollywood.

Market Size and Box Office Clout:

In 2020, Chinese ticket sales exceeded those in the United States, making China the number one box-office market in the world.

In 2014, the Chinese film market was worth 21.7 billion Chinese Renminbi (CNY), approximately $3.3 billion US Dollars (USD) in box-office revenue.

A single film, Transformers: Age of Extinction, pulled in a then-record $301 million at the Chinese box office, contributing to its global haul of $1.1 billion.

Government Funding for Propaganda and Media:

The Chinese government has committed billions of dollars over many years to build up its indigenous film industry to compete with the US.

The Chinese Central Television (CCTV) English language service was estimated to have a budget of $6.6 billion by 2010 to spread its message globally.

One estimate suggests Chinese leader Xi Jinping has given China Global Television Network (the international division of CCTV) $10 billion to spread China's message. (This is significantly larger than the US Broadcasting Board of Governors' budget of $637 million for FY 2021).

Direct Investment in Hollywood:

In the 2010s, the Chinese company Wanda made major acquisitions:

Bought AMC for $2.6 billion.

Bought Legendary Entertainment for $3.5 billion.

Cost of Censorship/Compliance:

MGM spent a million dollars over two months to change a film to placate Chinese censors.

Historically, Chinese threats of economic sanctions for unflattering portrayals have been financially significant:

Sony was threatened with disruption to its electronics supply chain (costing billions to rebuild) for a film about the Dalai Lama (Seven Years in Tibet).

Disney was threatened with the cancellation of its TV channel and theme park for its film about the Dalai Lama (Kundun).

*************************************************
US Military (DoD) Assistance to Hollywood Productions (Focusing on subsidized costs and reimbursement policies).

Chinese Government/Military Influence on Film (Focusing on market size and investment).

Film Revenue (Global Box Office) (Focusing on the money the films make).

The three sections were the result of synthesizing the financial data to answer your request for more detailed monetary information related to military films globally.
********************************************
Here is the combined financial detail, this time using clear numerical section formatting for better clarity:

Detailed Financial Breakdown of Military-Related Films (Global)
The financial dynamics of military-related films involve two main aspects: the subsidies and costs associated with military assistance (primarily the US and China) and the massive revenue generated by these films globally.

I. US Military (DoD) Assistance and Subsidies
The relationship between the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) and Hollywood is primarily a financial arrangement where the DoD offers an enormous, non-cash subsidy in exchange for editorial control.

Value of Equipment Loaned (The Subsidy):

The core financial benefit for studios is receiving access to military equipment at low or non-market rates. This avoids the astronomical cost of renting, acquiring, or insuring such assets privately.

Cost of Assets for Comparison:

A single F-35 fighter jet costs over $80 million to purchase.

The operational cost of an aircraft carrier can be $6 million to $8 million per day.

A typical war movie budget is around $50 million to $100 million.

Studio Savings Example: For the film Man of Steel (reported budget of $225 million), the cost to use all military apparatuses was reported to be less than $1 million. This represents a dramatic cost reduction for the studio.

Reimbursement Policy (Official Cost):

The official policy dictates that support is provided at "no additional expense to the Government and taxpayers." Production companies are required to reimburse the DoD for the direct operations, maintenance, supply, and equipment costs incurred as a consequence of providing support.

In practice, this reimbursement covers fuel, maintenance crew wages, and other operating expenses, but it does not cover the full depreciation or market rental value of the equipment, effectively creating the subsidy.

DoD Administrative Costs:

The DoD’s Entertainment Liaison Office handles approximately 200 requests annually.

The estimated total cost to the Federal Government just to review these requests is relatively minor, around $$6,892 per year, based on the time spent by civil service employees (GS-12 level).

The Pentagon also directly funds certain media projects, having reportedly paid TV studios in 2023 to integrate military-friendly messaging into programs like talk shows.

II. Global Military Film Revenue and Foreign Investment
Military-themed films are a major global financial driver, particularly with the rise of government-backed productions outside of Hollywood.

Top Box Office Grosses (Unadjusted Worldwide):

Many of the highest-grossing military-related films demonstrate the immense revenue potential of the genre.

Top Gun: Maverick (US): Over $1.49 billion worldwide.

The Battle at Lake Changjin (China): Over $902 million worldwide.

Wolf Warrior 2 (China): Over $870 million worldwide.

Chinese Government Funding and Market Power:

China's massive box office—the largest film market in the world—gives it unparalleled financial leverage over global filmmaking.

Direct Media Funding: The Chinese government has committed vast funds to soft power efforts, with estimates suggesting leadership has given the China Global Television Network (CGTN) as much as $10 billion to promote its message globally.

Investment in Hollywood Infrastructure: Chinese companies have financially secured footholds in the US film industry, such as Wanda's purchase of AMC for $2.6 billion and Legendary Entertainment for $3.5 billion.

Cost of Global Censorship:

Studios incur direct costs to ensure their films gain access to the lucrative Chinese market:

MGM spent $1 million over two months to change a film's antagonists from Chinese to North Korean to appease censors.

Studios have faced threats of billions of dollars in financial disruption (e.g., to electronics supply chains or theme park/TV channel access) for producing films critical of the Chinese government.