Return to: Home | Culture | Film

Sticking to the script

John Pilger

Published 19 February 2009

During the Cold War, Hollywood's anti-Soviet message was loud and clear. Today, the film industry is more likely to censor by omission

Sticking to the script

When I returned from the war in Vietnam, I wrote a film script as an antidote to the myth that the war had been an ill-fated noble cause. The producer David Puttnam took the draft to Hollywood and offered it to the major studios, whose responses were favourable - well, almost. Each issued a report card in which the final category, "politics", included comments such as: "This is real, but are the American people ready for it? Maybe they'll never be."

By the late 1970s, Hollywood judged Americans ready for a different kind of Vietnam movie. The first was The Deer Hunter, which, according to Time, "articulates the new patriotism". The film celebrated immigrant America, with Robert De Niro as a working-class hero ("liberal by instinct") and the Vietnamese as subhuman oriental barbarians and idiots, or "gooks". The dramatic peak was reached during recurring orgiastic scenes in which GIs were forced to play Russian roulette by their Vietnamese captors. This was made up by the director, Michael Cimino, who also made up a story that he had seen military service in Vietnam. "I have this insane feeling that I was there," he said. "Somehow . . . the line between reality and fiction has become blurred."

Ecstatic critics treated The Deer Hunter as virtually a documentary. "The film that could purge a nation's guilt!" said the Daily Mail. President Carter was moved by its "genuine American message". Catharsis was at hand. Vietnam movies became a revisionist popular history of the great crime in Indochina. That more than four million people had died terribly and unnecessarily, and that their homeland had been poisoned to a wasteland, was not the concern of these films. Rather, Vietnam was an "American tragedy", in which the invader was to be pitied in a blend of false bravado and angst: sometimes crude (the Rambo films) and sometimes subtle (Oliver Stone's Platoon). What mattered was the strength of the purgative.

None of this, of course, was new: it was how Hollywood created the myth of the Wild West, which was harmless enough unless you happened to be a Native American; and how the Second World War has been relentlessly glorified, which may be harmless enough unless you happen to be one of countless innocent human beings, from Serbia to Iraq, whose deaths or dispossession are justified by moralising references to 1939-45. Hollywood's gooks, its Untermenschen, are essential to this crusade - the despatched Somalis in Ridley Scott's Black Hawk Down and the sinister Arabs in movies such as Rendition, in which the torturing CIA is absolved by Jake Gyllenhaal's good egg.

Emitting safe snipes and sneers, film critics promote a deeply political system that dominates what we pay to see

As Robbie Graham and Matthew Alford pointed out in the New Statesman (2 February), in 167 minutes of Steven Spielberg's Munich, the Palestinian cause is restricted to just two and a half minutes. "Far from being an 'even-handed cry for peace', as one critic claimed," they wrote, "Munich is more easily interpreted as a corporate-backed endorsement of Israeli policy."

With honourable exceptions, film critics rarely question this, or identify the true power behind the screen. Obsessed with celebrity actors and vacuous narratives, they are the cinema's lobby correspondents. Emitting safe snipes and sneers, they promote a deeply political system that dominates most of what we pay to see, knowing not what we are denied. Brian De Palma's 2007 film Redacted shows an Iraq the media do not report. He depicts the homicides and gang rapes that are never prosecuted and are the essence of any colonial conquest. In the New York Village Voice, the critic Anthony Kaufman, in abusing the "divisive" De Palma for his "perverse tales of voyeurism and violence", did his best to taint the film as a kind of heresy and to bury it.

In this way, the "war on terror" - the conquest and subversion of resource-rich regions of the world, whose ramifications and oppressions touch all our lives - is virtually excluded from the popular cinema. Michael Moore's outstanding Fahrenheit 9/11 was a freak; the notoriety of its distribution ban by the Walt Disney Company helped it to force its way into cinemas. My own 2007 film The War on Democracy, which inverted the "war on terror" in Latin America, was distributed in Britain, Australia and other countries but not in the United States. "You will need to make structural and political changes," said a major New York distributor. "Maybe get a star like Sean Penn to host it - he likes liberal causes - and tame those anti-Bush sequences."

During the Cold War, Hollywood's state propaganda was unabashed. The classic 1957 dance movie Silk Stockings was an anti-Soviet diatribe interrupted by the fabulous footwork of Cyd Charisse and Fred Astaire. These days, there are two types of censorship. The first is censorship by introspective dross. Betraying its long tradition of producing gems, escapist Hollywood is consumed by the corporate formula: just make 'em long and asinine and hope the hype will pay off. Real talent is absorbed. Ricky Gervais is his clever comic self in Ghost Town, while around him stale, formulaic characters sentimentalise the humour to death.

These are extraordinary times. Vicious colonial wars and political, economic and environmental corruption cry out for a place on the big screen. Yet try to name one recent film that has dealt with these, honestly and powerfully, let alone satirically. Censorship by omission is virulent. We need another Wall Street, another Last Hurrah, another Dr Strangelove. The partisans who tunnel out of their prison in Gaza, bringing in food, clothes and medicines, and weapons with which to defend themselves, are no less heroic than the celluloid-honoured POWs and partisans of the 1940s. They and the rest of us deserve the respect of the greatest popular medium.

Post this article to

  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • newsvine
  • Reddit

15 comments from readers

Jonny Mac
19 February 2009 at 14:03

Hollywood, like any other industry in a capitalist economy, is driven by money.

They will finance and prmote films that make them money.

They clearly think that the type of films that Pilger would approve of and make wouldn't make money.

So what's Pilger's answer? The taxpayer to finance left-wing films? That would go down like a cup of cold sick.

BitterGrace
19 February 2009 at 15:29

Actually, Jonny Mac, Hollywood finances and promotes plenty of films that don't make a dime. The lack of alternative political perspectives in mainstream movies may be due to many things, but it can't be entirely credited to the flawless capitalist instincts of Hollywood executives.

There's no question that audiences will respond to good films with a different point of view, assuming they get a chance to see them. "Waltz with Bashir" has been filling the seats in Nashville's lone independent film house for weeks. Obviously, the big chain theaters here had no interest in it. Wonder why...

Pencils
19 February 2009 at 16:40

There is still the occasional glimpse of reality gets through. 'Three Kings' and 'Syriana' had their moments. I don't know how they got made. Incredibly, the tv series 'Lost' has an Iraqi as one of the main characters; he used to be a torturer (no surprise there), but incredibly he has flashbacks to the CIA organising a false-flag suicide bombing. Don't know how that slipped through the net. I've only seen the first 2 series, so I don't know if they've rectified that - it will probably turn out that they were 'cheese-eating surrender monkeys' pretending to be CIA.

writeon
19 February 2009 at 20:57

Hollywood isn't known as the 'Dream Factory' for nothing. What I find most disturbing is how the values or 'ideology' of Hollywood, has spread like rings on a pond, throughout American culture, though this isn't surprising in a visual age. Increasingly, I see the United States as kind of 'Disney Democracy', where political 'stars' perform in elaborate rituals on the national stage, and project personas carefully constructed to appeal to a captive audience, spellbound by the wizzards behind the curtain in the land of Oz.

tempelton
20 February 2009 at 15:16

I went to see Frost/Nixon recently and entered the cinema full of cynicism for what I expected would be another nauseating 90-minute treatise on why Nixon is bad only because of Watergate (Vietnamese civilians be damned).

I was however somewhat surprised - perhaps 40% so - by the relatively lengthy (i.e. more than 60 seconds) amount of time dedicated to discussing the war crimes/murder spree of the Nixon/Kissinger gang.

It is true however that this political content was packaged and delivered in the form of a character who was clearly typecast as a leftie (and hence he would be bound to say such outrageous things, wouldn't he?). Nevertheless, the movie makers clearly showed some adherence to reality, which in itself is something of a cinematic revelation these days!

Another good recent movie was Waltz with Bashir. Innovative and humane, it perhaps skimped somewhat on the politics but battled to quite literally bring the humanity of the bitter story bursting into the frame by the end of the film. Recommended.

However, you are quite right John, American cinema in general - and Hollywood in particular - is lagging light years behind when it comes to covering world events in an honest way. I would suggest that, if you want to find some genuine truth-tellers in the great American narrative tradition, turn your attention to TV instead.

In David Simon's The Wire, witness the webs of power that bind the poor into place across America. In Damages, watch as the Statue of Liberty is quite literally used to bludgeon the innocent to death whilst nefarious legal games play for the benefit of the powerful. In the Sopranos, see how the American businessman / corporate structure wreaks havoc and violence on unsuspecting victims for profit, as the CEO then drives home to his large house and comfortable life in the suburbs, full of self-pity and plans for tomorrow.

Same as it ever was. The medium has merely shifted.

DCarins
23 February 2009 at 16:14

Isn't it also a case that the medium of film itself is so full of cliché and audience expectation that an initial plot idea can almost drive itself without any "artistic" input whatsoever?

We've been seduced and lulled into a moribund passivity; paradoxically this means that we expect extremely "clever" films such as Crash, even if they are formulaic in their cleverness.

I think the problem isn't so much Hollywood, or even market forces, just the fact that film has been so successful it has started to create its own material, like a robot with AI. Film is over. Stop worrying about mass entertainment for the proles who think they're middle class. All "leisure" entertainment is bourgeois masturbation....

writeon
23 February 2009 at 16:16

Whilst 'Slumdog Millionaire' has a lot of the feelgood factor and fits into the aspirational ideology of the American Dream, 'The Wrestler' is altogether different. It's a movie about the other side of the coin. The reality hiding underneath the surface of the mythology, where people are slaves and human sacrifice is integral to the proper functioning of market democracy.

geepee
24 February 2009 at 02:14

It is good to see, the likes of John Pilger, interested in ferreting out the truth from the bullshit

jan
24 February 2009 at 06:16

It's not all gloom; we've still been able to "enjoy" Syriana, Lions for Lambs and Charlie Wilson's War, to name a few.

Krisco
26 February 2009 at 08:46

Dear Mr Pilger

Thanks for this exposé. What you say is eminently illustrated by our Justice minister (Ha!) Jack Straw vetoing the publication of cabinet deliberations prior to the illegal invasion of Iraq. The difference is that here, it is real life and not some movie. Over a million REAL people died or were displaced Even more importantly, an individual complicit in war crimes has the power and temerity to veto an inquiry into his own [remember the plagiarised dodgy dossiers presented by him to the UN?] and his cohorts’ criminal actions. And all in the name of ‘democracy’ and ‘national security’. It is like someone accused of murder or terrorism being given the right to decide who can give evidence or testify against the actions of the accused. Even Hollywood would not sink to these low levels.

Remember also that these are the very people who support ID cards, DNA databases and CCTV surveillance with the slogan “if you have done nothing wrong, you have nothing to worry about”.

Thomas Devine
26 February 2009 at 16:42

Hollywood finances those films it thinks will make money. Star Wars, as apolitical a film as I could think of off the top of my head, had to go through a huge fight to get made. Once the moneymen saw money in it, sequels, of brutally declining quality, were easily made.

There have been times when Hollywood at least tried to be progressive. But they soon found that moral worthiness, without a good script, did not sell. Hollywood has traditionally declined to admit that you need good scripts to make good films, writers being the least respected, and least well paid artists in Hollywood.

Mr. Pilger, who's bitter hate of the US is the theme of all his works is not talking about giving fair chances to alternate opinions. No, like Republicans here is the US, he is talking about Hollywood's duty to be his amen corner and preach his word to the masses. Why would I want to see a film that is merely cheap agitprop? Mr. Pilger, like Pat Buchanon, Pat Roberson, and Rush Limbaugh, demands that everybody get on his side and do it his way. Hollywood is about profits. And they assume they get those profits selling fun and excitement. Long lectures on political theology are rarely fun.

max caulfield
28 February 2009 at 07:05

Against these extraordinary circumstances which cannot be disputed, the universal longings expressed surrounding the advent of a new president in White House would amount to no more than inward-looking superstition if at the same time as a useful cultural mind-forming platform to the world as Hollywood is not mobilised, or at least recognised for its potency, to confronting oncoming difficulties.

Otherwise one cannot fault business as usual and the bottom lines. And fun too as represented by Starbucks, Madonna, and Hollywood, all to be easily had by all and at seemingly little cost.

rockerboy
01 March 2009 at 07:16

Capitalist culture cannot produce any good movies.

Capitalism needs to be totally overthrown.

rockerboy
01 March 2009 at 07:20

Capitalist culture can never produce any films relevant

to the working class. Only on overthrowing the system

can we expect some good films.

max caulfield
01 March 2009 at 09:12

Likening Pilger to the likes of Buchanan and Robertson would further confirm the valued service to the world's truer understanding from a much marginalised position in an age obsessed with much that is easy to be had and at seemingly little cost like Starbucks or Madonna or Hollywood.

Post your comment

Please note: you will need to login or register before you can comment on the website

About the writer

John Pilger

John Pilger, renowned investigative journalist and documentary film-maker, is one of only two to have twice won British journalism's top award; his documentaries have won academy awards in both the UK and the US. In a New Statesman survey of the 50 heroes of our time, Pilger came fourth behind Aung San Suu Kyi and Nelson Mandela. "John Pilger," wrote Harold Pinter, "unearths, with steely attention facts, the filthy truth. I salute him."

Read More

Vote!

Was the government wrong to sack David Nutt?

Suggest a question

View comments

© New Statesman 1913 – 2009

Tracker