Operation Hollywood: How the Pentagon Shapes and Censors the Movies Hardcover – 20 Apr 2004

While reading of this book would be a good education in propoganda for everyone, it could have been written in a far more educational manner.

I, like many, I would guess, did not realize that those credits at the end of the movie, thanking the armed forces, are more than a simple thank you. They indicate the Pentagon has approved the movie for propoganda purposes.

Most people realize that propoganda was a prevailing force in the movies of the World War II era. But the same propoganda continues today, in a much more subtle form.

A more interesting book would have covered the history of government propoganda in Hollywood releases, not just centered on mostly movies of the last 20 years. There was not a mention of the Disney movies seen on the DVD release "On the Front Lines", or of other movies of the era (such as Abbott and Costello's "Buck Privates"). This was propoganda at its peak.

Also, it would have been interesting to understand the logic behind how the Pentagon would think movies such as "The Swarm" and "Airport 77" would make individuals want to join the armed forces.

I also continue to wonder, as it wasn't mentioned in the book, why the Pentagon supported movies such as "Run Silent Run Deep" or "The Caine Mutiny", both of which deal with mutiny in great detail.

While I admire the author for tackling such a subject, and in bringing it to the public's attention, I just wish he had tackled it with a bit more fervor.

Operation Hollywood is an interesting book about the common practice in which studios alter scripts to meet military PR requirements in return for free access to both bases and equipment.
The book shows how pro-military movies leads to spikes in recruitment and as a result, the military wants to control everything that goes into a movie. All too often, Hollywood acquiesces to their demands. The military believes that they are only enforcing accuracy, but they also maintain that any film that does not reflect well on the military is "inaccurate."
This baleful influence has altered the view that Americans now have of the military. They believe that the U.S. military is intrincsically good and is incapable of doing anything wrong.
Operation Hollywood is an interesting and revealing book. As such it is recommended.

The subject is long overdue. The temptation is to react according to our well packaged beliefs so I thought instead of reviewing the book, I'd 'review' the author.
If David Lee Robb wrote it, you can take it to the bank. Within the investigative journalistic crowd, he has always been the most exhaustive and thorough researcher in the industry. Unlike 99.9% of the others, Robb has never had to retract a word.
Well done!

One of the principles the USA was founded upon was the freedom of speech; no government entity can restrict the freedom of expression of a private individual. This however does not preclude government agencies from sponsoring their own speech, or supporting those whose speech reflects favorably on the actions of said agency. This latter intrusion of government into the mass media can be as harmful to society if not more so than outright censorship, primarily because it is less overt and more excusable.

This book deals with one form of such government - sponsored speech; the US military providing support to movie producers to make movies as long as the movies reflect favorably on the US military. The book gives a thorough and carefully-cited history of how Hollywood works with various branches of the US military to help get movies made. In turn, the military branch(es) in question have a say over the movie script, including the right to censor or rewrite entire scenes. The US military helps by providing access to military hardware, installations, and sometimes personnel to movie makers working on military movies. The result is often movies biased towards the US military, with a subtle goal of increasing recruitment. Products of this arrangement include Top Gun, Black Hawk Down, and Stripes. The unfortunate result is that parts of military life or military history that should be known are rewritten, whitewashed, or sometimes ignored altogether. This includes abuse of war prisoners by US servicemen, rapes of innocent women in and around battlefields by US servicemen, and substance abuse within the military.

This arrangement is supported at multiple levels in both Hollywood and the US government. In Hollywood, directors, producers, studio companies, and actors and actresses take part in this symbiosis. In the US government, soldiers, field officers, staff officers, and presidential administrative staff also take part in this symbiosis.

There are however, those who refuse to play by these rules. Two examples cited in the book are Kevin Costner and Oliver Stone. The military refused to support Costner's production of Dances With Wolves because the script shows US soldiers killing Native Americans...during the 1800s! This shows how ridiculous the censorship process has become. US soldiers killing Native Americans is a commonly known fact, and should be acknowledged by the federal government. The US military could have taken the initiative, owned up to their actions, sponsored the movie, and at the end of the movie's credits include an apology for their actions. Instead, they refused any help whatsoever unless all the scenes between Native Americans and US soldiers were cleaned up to protect the military's image.

Overall, the primary conclusion I got from the book is that to watch Hollywood movies with a little suspicion. The story you are seeing has probably been tampered with and censored one or more government agencies, often with the purpose of furthering propaganda of one type or another. Another conclusion I got from reading this book is that ever since 1970, the war movies that have done the best in terms of critical acclaim and Academy Awards have been those completed without military support; Platoon and Apocalypse Now are the two best examples. In all, I am glad I read this book. I highly recommend it.

David L. Robb has a bone to pick with the Pentagon. He thinks the Pentagon policy of witholding military cooperation to movie producers who don't portray the military in a positive way is wrong. Operation Hollywood is filled with entertaining examples of how producers have butted heads with the various branches of the military.

While Ivan Reitman practically rewrote his movie comedy Stripes to accomodate the Army, Clint Eastwood refused to give in to the Army's demands for change. Eastwood even wrote to his friend President Reagan for help, but no dice. The Marines did not demand the fundamental changes the Army had, so Eastwood was able to make Heartbreak Ridge with only minor changes, such as making his character a Marine.

Robb's argument is that the military services are for the benefit of the people, not the propagandists at the Pentagon, so they should not be able to exercise so much control over Hollywood. But if the producers don't want to play ball with the Army, they can build their own military sets and buy their own tanks and hire their own soldier extras. It's just a lot more expensive that way, and many producers would like to find a way of making the movie they want (within reason) while taking advantage of the huge cost savings of using military bases and personnel.

What's important for the viewer of movies and television to realize is how much control the producers do allow the military. When you watch Jag on TV or see Saving Private Ryan at the theater, it's a mistake to forget the deal with the devil the producers may have made to save a bundle. It's nothing new - Shakespeare rewrote history to make his plays palatable to those in power.

In the end, what we have is another reminder that what you see on the screen ISN'T REAL. Who would've thought?