Project Title

Soldier or Assassin: American Military Involvement in Film

Presentation Author(s) Information

Ben VoorhiesFollow

Faculty Mentor(s) Name(s)

Jennifer Flaherty

Abstract

The pro-military sentiment of Top Gun, and the vehemently anti-war sentiments in Apocalypse Now represent opposite sides of a political spectrum, despite each film’s place as a famous American war film. The support for the American military seen in Top Gun, however, can be partly attributed to military collaboration. Within the Department of Defense, there exists an "Entertainment Media Unit," which is a specialized division of the DOD dedicated entirely to working with the entertainment industry. Directors in need of assistance from the military, whether that be props or simple advising, contact the Entertainment Media Unit, and present their script. The unit reads the script, takes note of all the "un-American" components of the film, and changes them to be more military-friendly. This has obvious implications for the artistic medium, but upon a deeper thematic analysis of U.S. funded and non-funded war films, the effect of the intervention can be fully uncovered. The two films to be discussed in this essay are two sides of a political spectrum. Top Gun acts as an advertisement for the military, while Apocalypse Now is a sequence of metaphorical nightmares. This is due to the fact that Apocalypse Now was not funded by the American military. Through a thematic analysis of these two films, the deeper intentions of the military come to surface. Serving in the military, according to Top Gun, results in brotherhood and comradery, while in Apocalypse Now, it results in isolation and insanity. The authority figures are personified as strict teachers, versus exploitative arbiters of suffering. They also both feature warm tropical locations. However, in Top Gun, these locations are sunny vacation spots, but in Apocalypse Now, the beauty of the scenery is contrasted with the destruction of the U.S. military. The two films, while sharing some peculiar similarities, represent different sides of a cinematic spectrum, separated by American military involvement in their production.

This document is currently not available here.

Share

COinS
 

Soldier or Assassin: American Military Involvement in Film

The pro-military sentiment of Top Gun, and the vehemently anti-war sentiments in Apocalypse Now represent opposite sides of a political spectrum, despite each film’s place as a famous American war film. The support for the American military seen in Top Gun, however, can be partly attributed to military collaboration. Within the Department of Defense, there exists an "Entertainment Media Unit," which is a specialized division of the DOD dedicated entirely to working with the entertainment industry. Directors in need of assistance from the military, whether that be props or simple advising, contact the Entertainment Media Unit, and present their script. The unit reads the script, takes note of all the "un-American" components of the film, and changes them to be more military-friendly. This has obvious implications for the artistic medium, but upon a deeper thematic analysis of U.S. funded and non-funded war films, the effect of the intervention can be fully uncovered. The two films to be discussed in this essay are two sides of a political spectrum. Top Gun acts as an advertisement for the military, while Apocalypse Now is a sequence of metaphorical nightmares. This is due to the fact that Apocalypse Now was not funded by the American military. Through a thematic analysis of these two films, the deeper intentions of the military come to surface. Serving in the military, according to Top Gun, results in brotherhood and comradery, while in Apocalypse Now, it results in isolation and insanity. The authority figures are personified as strict teachers, versus exploitative arbiters of suffering. They also both feature warm tropical locations. However, in Top Gun, these locations are sunny vacation spots, but in Apocalypse Now, the beauty of the scenery is contrasted with the destruction of the U.S. military. The two films, while sharing some peculiar similarities, represent different sides of a cinematic spectrum, separated by American military involvement in their production.