bobtl%toolbox.wv.tek.com@RELAY.CS.NET (12/01/89)
From: bobtl%toolbox.wv.tek.com@RELAY.CS.NET This may not be appropriate, but I am interested in the psychology of "warriors" (members of the armed services) and how the American public views them. I think popular films are an expression of this. A local TV station showed two films on subsequent nights, "Top Gun" and "Private Benjamin". I was struck by the way the two services are treated differently. So I started thinking about other films. How about "Stripes" and "An Officer and a Gentleman". Same thing. I have to go back to some of the John Wayne flicks before I find where a functional member of an Army unit is portrayed as a hero (Green Berets). Now I'm not a real film buff, so I probably have missed something. If so, I would like to hear about it. One overriding theme in the recent movies I can think of is individualism. If so, that has a tremendous impact on leaders of American soldiers, of all services. I see a lot of simularities between the jobs of a naval aviator and a tank commander - even if the tank commander doesn't get a movie made about him.:-)
wanttaja@beaver.cs.washington.edu (Ronald J Wanttaja) (12/04/89)
From: ssc-vax!wanttaja@beaver.cs.washington.edu (Ronald J Wanttaja) In article <11857@cbnews.ATT.COM>, bobtl%toolbox.wv.tek.com@RELAY.CS.NET writes: > This may not be appropriate, but I am interested in the psychology of > "warriors" (members of the armed services) and how the American public > views them. I think popular films are an expression of this. > > A local TV station showed two films on subsequent nights, "Top Gun" > and "Private Benjamin". I was struck by the way the two services are > treated differently. So I started thinking about other films. > How about "Stripes" and "An Officer and a Gentleman". Same thing. > > I have to go back to some of the John Wayne flicks before I find where > a functional member of an Army unit is portrayed as a hero (Green Berets). > Now I'm not a real film buff, so I probably have missed something. > If so, I would like to hear about it. The fundamental difference is cost: The equipment necessary to film an "Army" movie is cheap and easily obtained. None of the services allow their equipment to be used in movies where the service is but in a bad light; for instance, "Dr. Strangelove" didn't have more than stock footage of B-52s, while "A Gathering of Eagles", filmed around the same time, had the full cooperation of the USAF and plenty of scenes custom-flown for the movie. If a filmmaker wants to make an Army film, he calls the local film supply house and rustles up a couple of Sherman tanks, or half-tracks, or tents, or whatever. The Army doesn't control these items, and can't effect the content of the film. But if the filmmaker wants to make a movie about aircraft carriers... well, there's only one major operator, and if the Navy doesn't like the script, the film doesn't get made. Sure it can be filmed with models in a studio tank, but... A perfect example was a TV-movie called "Red Flag", about the Air Force fighter weapons school, versus the (gag) "Iron Eagle" films. "Red Flag" was a bit simple, but put the Air Force in a favorable light. "Iron Eagle" had a teenager stealing an F-16, which was a plot device the USAF wouldn't stand for. So "Iron Eagle" used IAF F-16s, with hoky USAF stickers pasted over the Israeli insignia. "Red Flag" had gen-u-wine USAF F-4s and F-5s. Ron Wanttaja (ssc-vax!wanttaja)
terryr@ogccse.ogc.edu (Terry Rooker) (12/04/89)
From: terryr@ogccse.ogc.edu (Terry Rooker) In article <11857@cbnews.ATT.COM> bobtl%toolbox.wv.tek.com@RELAY.CS.NET writes: > > >From: bobtl%toolbox.wv.tek.com@RELAY.CS.NET > >This may not be appropriate, but I am interested in the psychology of >"warriors" (members of the armed services) and how the American public >views them. I think popular films are an expression of this. > >A local TV station showed two films on subsequent nights, "Top Gun" >and "Private Benjamin". I was struck by the way the two services are > If you look you will find many other expressions. In the mid 1970's I had only been at college for 2 weeks on an ROTC scholarship. I was asked why I wanted to be a baby killer. At that point I had atended 4 ROTC classes and 2 drills. My only possible answer was, I didn't know I hadn't tried it yet :-) Now as I see ads and commercials I see more military themes. They run the range from dogs marching around a track to a sailor returning home and going to McDonalds. (Ironically, most sailors I knew, if met by such an attractive person certainly wouldn't go out for a hamburger first thing) Positive movies, such as Top Gun and Private Banjamin are also indicative. This is an important consideration. It resides in the intangibles of the military. When the society you are sworn to protect is constantly dumping on you it causes problems. In the 1970's the all-volunterr military had problems meeting their recruiting quotas, much less getting high quality recruits. The obvious affect on military readiness should be obvious. The main affect is a loss of pride. Through the early 80's, many military personnel didn't want to wear uniforms off base. Flying home for christmas I was wearing a uniform. The lady beside me was very friendly until she askes me what I did. Once I told her, she gave me the cold shoulder (the navy has a uniform that is a black shirt, black tie, and black trousers. she din't know if I was in the military or if I was a priest :-). The affect of such loss of pride if those troops have to fight is unknown, but is something that must be considered. Terry Rooker terryr@cse.ogc.edu