Home » Film & TV » Military Movies » Hollywood Fights The Facts

Hollywood Fights The Facts

© John Lovett

Here are a couple of issues tickling my fancy this AM. First of all, a person wrote on The Hollywood Military Advisor Chat Board [http://hollywoodnetwork.com/Lovett/chat/... ], Ref 1369. Are there any military technical advisor associations/organisation (sic)/clubs that you know of? So far, we are all scattered to the winds plying our craft.

My answer was Ref 1375. Ref 1369 - The short answer is no. There have been unsuccessful attempts in the past to create a military advisor group or pool of talent. I guess you just have to have a large Rolodex. JL

I think we are an iconoclastic bunch. Highly competitive, we all seek work in a highly competitive industry which all in all does not lead to any unifying direction. In itself, that is too bad because if military advisors and military equipment suppliers could pool their expertise and "stuff" then perhaps we could portray an unified and professional front to the motion picture industry rather than a bunch of "gun nuts" running around yapping about uniforms and medals.

A partial answer is joining the Military 4 Movies Web Ring [http://users.intercomm.com/pahrahdise/m4... Or, you can join the EGroups Military Advisor Discussion Group to share information [http://www.egroups.com/group/militaryadv...

Second of all, a BBC article that was written by reporter Ryan Dilley looks at Hollywood's influence over history. Named "Hollywood fights the facts," [http://news6.thdo.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/u... ] The crux of Dilley's argument seems to be that because Hollywood is leaving the UK out of current World War II films SAVING PRIVATE RYAN, U-571 and the upcoming COLDITZ, we are teaching the "Playstation generation" that American won WWII all by itself. Dilley writes that "Despite six years of fierce fighting and more than 400,000 war dead, it seems Britain was only a bit player in the Allied defeat of Nazi Germany. Or so Hollywood would have us believe."

I find this argument specious. At a certain point, the argument becomes social elitist "whining." While it is true the historical events portrayed in the films mentioned did indeed involve British military, the films did not. Why not, you ask? Shssh and I will tell you.

Folks, the bottom line in Hollyweird is money. These films were produced in Hollywood with American money. The rhetorical question is, if I were an American bank financing a war movie would I finance a film about Americans or a film about Brits? I would suggest that if I intend to make a nickel (or quid for that matter) off the film I had better finance a war movie that is about Americans. A British war movie about the British might make money in the U.K., but I don't think it would make its production costs back in the U.S. When was the last time a British film company using solely British money made a war movie? Searching the IMDB, I could find no such instance in recent history.

The copyright of the article Hollywood Fights The Facts in Military Movies is owned by John Lovett. Permission to republish Hollywood Fights The Facts in print or online must be granted by the author in writing.