The U.S. Air Force helped with the production of the film "United 93"

[arcadian]

That's pretty blatant government propaganda.


http://www.airforcehollywood.af.mil/portfolio/

United 93
- Script research and dialogue assistance
- On-set technical advice in the UK

[spanone]

1. they are happy to help, but only it it promotes their agenda. anti-war films get no help

[babylonsister]

2. How was that propaganda? Let me tell you about the good old days,

when people weren't so paranoid about this government. It was a given that the military's help was requested for movies like this.
I saw that movie, and thought it was well done. What happened had to be speculation, but I bet the script wasn't too far afield of what actually happened.

[Bob Dobbs]

3. "I bet the script wasn't too far afield of what actually happened. "

I'll sure take that bet.

Total propaganda.

The good old days, weren't.

[babylonsister]

5. So you tell me what really happened. nt

[uppityperson]

7. Goodness, you want to argue logic with Bob Dobbs?

Anyone who has that name and avatar, well, good luck!

[babylonsister]

16. ROFL!

OK then, you convinced me! :D

[LostinVA]

12. And you would lose that bet

Greengrass doesn't make RW propaganda.

And yeah, she's right: they were the good old days of film making.

[MichiganVote]

4. The US military routinely rents out miliary equip./bases/ etc. to film crews.

Film crews pay for the equipment and advisements provided. And they have done it with films such as Apocalypse Now, Platoon and Saving Private Ryan.

Keeping it real.

[JackRiddler]

20. Wrong.

Platoon and Apocalypse Now did not receive any government help. They would never help out films that involved fragging US officers, like Platoon, or assassinating them, as in Apocalypse Now. I saw a spokesperson for the Pentagon film office in a documentary point this out about these two films specifically.

Renting taxpayer-financed equipment is a subsidy. The costs are much higher when the government doesn't help.

The Pentagon film office only approves scripts that fit their guidelines and frequently request script changes.

Where do you get your (false) claims?

[MichiganVote]

43. PBS recently had a whole dialogue on this w/a producer. Um..where do you

rent your tanks from anyway?

[JackRiddler]

I'm sure there's a market for old tanks, which...

can then be dressed up as newer ones. You can also do amazing things with models, Potemkin cut-outs, painted backdrops, stock footage, etc. etc., and of course more recently you have digital effects.

Now, if you want to speak an informed opinion, you can do your research. Or at least check out the research others have done.

For example, you can watch the documentary I referred to, "Operation Hollywood," made for Australian TV, at the following link, which includes an informative review. In the film, a spokesperson for the Pentagon movie office specifically says why they would never have helped Apocalypse Now: because it involved the dispatching of an assassin to kill a rogue US officer who was committing atrocities.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article8163.htm

So why, they would argue, should the Pentagon spend its money on pacifism or promoting the darker side of the soldier's world? Why reward a Platoon when The Green Berets is what you're after?

Among those with an opinion in Operation Hollywood are Australian director Phil Noyce, Phil Strub from the US Department of Defence, historian Lawrence Suid and Joe Trento, author and president of the anti-war Public Education Centre. This, they all agree, is a world where lines, plots and nationalities are changed so that film producers can gain access to expensive military hardware.

In the 1995 James Bond movie Goldeneye, for example, the original script had a US Navy admiral betraying state secrets. This was changed to make the traitor a member of the French navy. After that the military's co-operation was forthcoming. Pacull and Robb takes us from the pedantry to the powerful in examining the changes to scripts. They list the producers and the movies that have fallen into line and show how the military's script editors work. Interestingly, it's not the censors who come under fire here quite so much as those co-operative, self-censoring filmmakers.

Still, as Robb says, in what has become ostensibly his campaign against this system, the long-term effect on generations of young Americans is an unknown. “How many of those killed in Iraq died because they joined up after they saw what was presented in a film?” How many have died as the result of unknown recruiting propaganda?

All a producer needs do for assistance, it seems, is submit five copies of his script to the Pentagon for approval, make whatever script changes the Pentagon suggests, film the script exactly as approved by the Pentagon and preview the finished product for Pentagon officials before it's shown to its broader audience. And, according to Robb, as he puts the boot firmly into Jerry Bruckheimer, Tom Goldberg (Stripes), John Woo and other producers and directors, many do this gladly. It is, he insists, Hollywood's dirtiest little secret.

[MichiganVote]

59. I revised my response to the poster below yours. See the link.

However, the Phillipino military was used for Apocal. Now.

[arcadian]

32. You are wrong

Apocalypse Now was denied any assistance by the military because it they didn't think that it would be a favorable portrayal to show the Army lending soldiers to the CIA to be assassins. They felt it wasn't "realistic". Platoon was also denied any access.

[MichiganVote]

56. I stand corrected...here is the link to the radio program I listened to recently

and I did not correctly hear the information about the three most notable antiwar Vietnam movies.

http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:VsNIP2UwQKEJ:ics.leeds.ac.uk/papers/vp01.cfm%3Foutfit%3Dpmt%26folder%3D932%26paper%3D1103+did+the+us+military+refuse+assistance+to+the+filsm+platoon+and+acpocalypse+now&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us

[Pale Blue Dot]

6. How many of those that responded so far actually saw the film?

I did, and I thought it was very well made, thoughtful, and fairly balanced.

[bigwillq]

9. I did.

I hated it. I thought it was awful. I didn't like how it was made at all.
During one part of the movie I yelled out (I really did) "Crash the plane already" :hide:

I just didn't like it. I wasn't connected to it at all. I didn't care about any of the characters because the script and the acting didn't make us connected. I could care less what happened to those "characters".

[Pale Blue Dot]

13. Wow. I loved it.

It was one of my favorite films of 2007. I actually loved the way the "terrorists" were portrayed - not your stereotypical Islamic types.

[bigwillq]

18. That's just how I am

when watching movies. I need to be connected whether it's a true story or not. I was annoyed the entire time.

[AlCzervik]

11. i saw it and i don't think it painted a picture of a very competent government.

[Pale Blue Dot]

15. Agreed nt

[LostinVA]

17. Agreed -- and many of the military were played by the actual people

Quit a little kicker, that!

[AlCzervik]

19. no kidding? I was hesitant to see it at first because i had read here of course it

was propaganda but i ended up renting it and that was about the last time i ever decided on a movie based on Gd. I thought it was well done.

[LostinVA]

24. I was pilloried for my support of both the writer-director and te movie back then

Yeah, and most of the air traffic controllers, etc. were the actual people, too.

In his "Bloody Sunday," some of the people playing those killed by the English soldiers were relatives of the actual victims.

[AlCzervik]

25. sorry that happened.

:hug:

[arcadian]

51. What does that have to do with the quality of the film or it's accuracy?

That's an interesting gimmick, but really nothing else. Does using some of the actual people lend an air of authenticity to the film? Yes, to people who don't examine the nature of the film and let their emotions sweep them away. Not in my book. The film was billed as a dramatization not a documentary.

[LostinVA]

61. Do you know what "Bloody Sunday" is?

If you do, and you saw his movie "Bloody Sunday," you would understand the accuracy of the work he does.

[arcadian]

69. Is it a documentary or is it a scripted drama?

Because what I've read of this director is that he intentionally blurs the line between the two genres. It's his gimmick, maybe he's good at it, I don't know, but he can't have it both ways.

[LostinVA]

74. It's a scripted drama

But, if you read the first hand accounts of the day, he is spot on.

[arcadian]

35. If it didn't promote the DoD agenda

They would never have gotten the access that they did to make the film.

[Pale Blue Dot]

36. Did you see the film? nt

[arcadian]

40. I own it. Seen it several times.

Besides the fact that it is pure speculation, there are gross inaccuracies with the film surrounding the known facts of that day.

[LostinVA]

62. He had the cockpit breached, because they believed that happened at the time the film was produced

The black box tapes weren't released until a month after the movie came out.

Anything else you would like to add?

[EOTE]

71. Did the movie include Mark Bingham's cell phone call to his mom?

You know, the one where he identified himself to his mom as "Mark Bingham" and repeatedly asked if she believed him? I haven't seen the movie, but I'm guessing that wasn't included. There's no way in hell I'd buy the official government coincidence theory on Flight 93 or anything else on that day.

[AlCzervik]

37. how so, maybe you saw a different movie than i did.

[readmoreoften]

52. Maybe appearing incompetent is the DoD agenda.

[arcadian]

68. The movie 'Enemy of the State' got full cooperation from the NSA and the CIA.

And that portrays the NSA as a rogue agency that spies on citizens and murders them. So read into THAT whatever you want.

[arcadian]

57. They certainly didn't portray an F-16 shooting down a Flight 93

I'm guessing they wouldn't have approved of that script.

:rofl:

[LostinVA]

63. That post explains a lot

I see you've escaped the dungeon.

[arcadian]

66. What exactly does that mean?

So, that's all you have, is lame put downs. You clearly were not the captain of your high school debating team.

:rofl:

[LostinVA]

14. Me -- I'm a big fan of Greengrass' work and his politics

Haruka wouldn't see it, because she knew two people who died at the WTC, but I did. Very well done.

[arcadian]

46. So you admit that you came into this discussion with a biased opinion.

Merely because of his politics, which I assume mesh with your's, both he and the film are A-Okay? I don't know the guy, but that is a pretty weak argument.

[Pale Blue Dot]

50. And you didn't?

:rofl:

[arcadian]

53. Absolutely not, I cited the military's website in the OP.

Maybe you should buy a dictionary and look up the word "propaganda".

[Pale Blue Dot]

54. ...

:rofl:

[arcadian]

58. ...

:thumbsup::rofl: good one

[LostinVA]

8. Great movie -- written and directed by a real Lefty

Take a gander at his "Bloody Sunday," too.

He's also known for using nonactors and handheld cameras. In "United 93," many of the air traffic controllers and military personnel were the actual people, and he had extensive interviews with the families of the passengers. In addition, he refused to make the movie unless ALL of the passengers' families approved it. No way would Greengrass allow himself to make RW propaganda.

I totally understand not wanting to see it, goodness knows I'd never want to see a movie about the VA Tech massacre.

[JackRiddler]

22. It doesn't have to be RW to be propaganda. n/t

[Pale Blue Dot]

26. So the Air Force would help a LW propaganda film?

BTW, did you see the movie?

[JackRiddler]

28. Of course I saw the movie. You can read my review...

Here.

http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20060427045349879

[Pale Blue Dot]

33. I read it. The whole thing. There is no discussion of the movie itself

beyond what was referenced from other reviews.

Did you really see the movie?

[Hugabear]

42. Are you going to call into question the honesty of every person who didn't like the film?

What's with the constant badgering and "Didja even see the movie" that you've asked each and every person who dares even criticize this movie?

[Pale Blue Dot]

44. Well, did you? nt

[Hugabear]

45. Read post #39

didjaseethemovie didjaseethemovie didjaseethemovie didjaseethemovie didjaseethemovie didjaseethemovie didjaseethemovie didjaseethemovie didjaseethemovie didjaseethemovie didjaseethemovie didjaseethemovie didjaseethemovie didjaseethemovie didjaseethemovie didjaseethemovie didjaseethemovie didjaseethemovie didjaseethemovie didjaseethemovie didjaseethemovie didjaseethemovie didjaseethemovie didjaseethemovie

[Pale Blue Dot]

49. ...

:rofl:

As a film fanatic, one thing I hate is when people condemn a movie they haven't seen. This happens all the time. If you say you have, that's good enough for me.

Although I will question your maturity level.

:rofl:

[JackRiddler]

48. Did you?

As a movie, it was pretty good. That doesn't change its content or function as a rendering of the Sept. 11th story exactly as told by the 9/11 Commission, complete with a salaried government employee (whose role on the day was an open controversy) playing himself. That's what I consider important about the film, not its artistic merit. In fact, its quality and verite approach serve to make it more effective as propaganda, because it feels so "real."

Thanks for reading.

[JackRiddler]

30. (and it also doesn't have to be LW to be propaganda, either.)

[arcadian]

38. I never said it was RW propaganda.

But anything that has government assistance in it's production is by it's very nature government propaganda.

[malaise]

10. Duh!

The Ministry of propaganda has its tentacles everywhere.

[AlCzervik]

21. Did you see the movie?

[malaise]

23. No n/t

[onenote]

29. well that makes you quite the expert doesn't it!

[JackRiddler]

27. An article about "United 93" and its propaganda functions...

This film was so crassly indistinguishable from a government production in its affirmative rendering of Chapter 1 of The 9/11 Commission Report that it even had the FAA hijack coordinator during the real Sept. 11th, Ben Sliney, playing himself.

http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20060427045349879

"And the FAA Guy Gets to Play Himself!"

(snip)

United 93 is not simply about what may have happened on a single flight. Half of the film time is spent depicting events on the ground, for example at air-traffic control installations.

On September 11th, air-defense procedures requiring the automatic interception of flights that deviate from assigned route went unheeded. This prevented the standard reconnaissance function of such interceptions. This has been termed a failure, and the agencies responsible for it include NORAD, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), the US Air Force, and the civilian and military command from Bush on down.

(snip)

In what is perhaps the film's most audacious and morally bankrupt move, Ben Sliney, the FAA crisis coordinator who was directly responsible for responding to the events of September 11th, is allowed to play himself. Sliney is widely credited as the man who at the height of the crisis ordered all flights nationwide to land immediately at the nearest airport. In repeating the performance for the movie, according to Newsday's Gene Seymour, he "seems more magnetic than anyone else on the ground, possibly because he appears to be one of the few who acts decisively."

Magnetic! Decisive! Now seriously, why does this privilege accrue only to Ben Sliney? Shouldn't the entire government, from Bush on down, get the same chance to play themselves as the heroes of a Hollywood 9/11?

In casting Sliney, the film producers show their willingness to collaborate with a salaried spokesperson of the government in constructing a palatable narrative. United 93 stands revealed as the Official Film of the Official Story.

5. As a work of propaganda, United 93 implicitly or explicitly endorses each of the official narrative's central tenets. These include the following...

[Bob Dobbs]

41. Obviously.

It is amazing the preponderance of sheeple that still want to believe the jingoist mythology of 911.

It takes real courage to confront the actual evil that was perpetrated that day.

And it was not perpetrated by Muslims.

[LostinVA]

64. The film was made by a total lefty Brit -- the most jingoist people of them all

:eyes:

Have you seen the movie?

[Hugabear]

31. The whole thing is pure "feel good" fluff

A group of brave American civilians rising up to confront those evil bastard Islamic terrorists, complete with catch-phrase (Let's roll). Makes ya feel good in the cockles of your heart, don't it?

:sarcasm:

[Pale Blue Dot]

34. Did you see the film?

Honestly?

[Hugabear]

39. Yes I did

And I didn't like it. I felt like much of it was contrived, since there's no way to know exactly what was going on that plane. I felt the only thing missing was Alan Jackson singing "Did you Remember" on the soundtrack.

Sorry if my opinion of the movie differs from yours, it's just the way I see it.

[readmoreoften]

47. I FUCKIN' KNEW IT! Damn. Script research and dialogue assistance. That's unbelievable.

Technical research I can rationalize. Script research is incredibly suspicious and "dialogue assistance" is tantamount to admitting propaganda. No writer calls up the air force and says "Hey can ya'll help me with my dialogue. I just can't figure out how my characters should communicate."

Good find.

I was also wondering about Iron Man as propaganda considering that some of the technology it unveiled is currently under development through Operation Vanilla World.

[arcadian]

55. Ironman was granted access.

http://www.airforcehollywood.af.mil/portfolio/

Iron Man
- Script research, wardrobe and dialogue assistance
- On-location filming at Edwards AFB, CA
- Secured Airmen Battle Uniform fabric for replication of new uniform
- Provided filming access to F-22, C-17 aircraft and HH-60 helicopter
- On-set technical advice. Combined Air Operations Center technical advisor
- Airmen extras from Los Angeles and Edwards AFBs

[EFerrari]

67. Oh, it was manipulative as hell. No surprise at all.

It was disgusting as possible.

[Hippo_Tron]

60. Umm, ya think?

So is Air Force One, Top Gun, and pretty much all of the others you can think of. It's not so much propaganda as it is a military recruiting tool.

[arcadian]

65. Do you even know what the word "propaganda" means?

Go look it up. It is exactly what you described and it necessarily doesn't haven't have a negative connotation though most people associate the word with malfeasance. All advertising is propaganda by it's mere nature, pretty much anything put out by any government is propaganda. It's sad that so many on this board do not know what that word means.

[Hippo_Tron]

72. I assumed you meant propaganda for some sinister right wing agenda

It is indeed propaganda for military recruitment. That's the only reason the Pentagon helps these people make movies.

[MinM]

70. Seven Days In May (1964) and Thirteen Days (2000) were denied DoD

access. Largely due to the too close to the truth, for comfort, portrayal of USAF General Curtis LeMay:

Burt Lancaster's..Gen. James Mattoon Scott in Seven Days in May (1964) was inspired by Gen. LeMay

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x163812

[entanglement]

73. Greengrass went out of his way to keep the movie sterile to appease right wingers

Very disappointing stuff, coming from the man who made Bloody Sunday.