Buzz
Since the production of Wings (1927), the first film to win an Oscar with Pentagon support, filmmakers have consistently turned to the military to lend their war films an air of realism.
The Department of Defense (DoD) frequently supplies military gear for use as props and consults on productions to ensure the US military is portrayed with precision. However, the Pentagon sometimes uses filmmakers' dependence on their resources to push for script alterations that significantly impact the final movie.
10. Black Hawk Down
Inspired by the 1993 Battle of Mogadishu, Black Hawk Down (2003) chronicles the experiences of soldiers during that ill-fated mission. The operation resulted in the deaths of 18 Americans and an unknown number of Somali casualties.
Given that the Battle of Mogadishu was largely seen as a military failure, it was unexpected that the Pentagon backed Ridley Scott’s film. However, the DoD likely hoped the public would emphasize the soldiers' courage over the grim details of the failed mission.
The US military supplied the production with technical advisors, 100 active soldiers, and eight Black Hawk helicopters. Additionally, the Pentagon utilized its PR teams to market the film and even organized screenings at military installations.
In a Mother Jones interview, when questioned if the film could have been produced without military assistance, Ridley Scott humorously replied, “Sure. We’d just have had to title it Huey Down.”
Due to the reliance on military resources, the Pentagon influenced the screenwriter to alter specific script elements. Most significantly, they requested the removal of Ranger John Stebbins' name, as the real Stebbins had been court-martialed in June 2000 for the rape of a child under 12.
The Pentagon likely sought to prevent controversy by omitting his name. Thus, in the movie, John Stebbins was renamed John Grimes and portrayed as a symbol of heroism and bravery.
9. Pearl Harbor
Although Pearl Harbor (2001) faced criticism from reviewers, the epic war romance achieved the third-highest box office earnings among romantic dramas released since 1980. Directed by Michael Bay, the film received extensive military backing, including permission to shoot scenes at the actual Pearl Harbor location.
Jack Green, from the Naval Historical Center’s curator branch, was assigned to the production for eight weeks. He provided insights on Japanese naval tactics and the nuances of navy drinking songs. Additionally, he played a key role in shaping one of the film’s characters.
Initially, Lieutenant Colonel Jimmy Doolittle was written as “a rude and clumsy individual.” Green objected to this depiction and requested a rewrite to make the character more likable. The filmmakers agreed, and the character was revised to align with Green’s perspective.
8. Transformers Franchise
It’s a misconception to think the DoD only supports films about real military events. Recently, they’ve also embraced aiding fantasy genre films. When the military battles malevolent aliens, it often avoids the unpleasant realities of war that more grounded war films might highlight.
This was evident in Michael Bay’s massive Transformers series. The sequel, Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen, was described by Lieutenant Colonel Gregory Bishop, the film’s military liaison, as “one of the most extensive collaborations between Hollywood and the military.” The film features the highest number of military branches ever showcased in a single movie.
The military’s prominent role in the film sparked some backlash. Critics argued that supporting a franchise primarily targeting children is a transparent effort to shape future enlistees. Captain Bryon McGarry, deputy director of Air Force Public Affairs, partly acknowledged this in a Variety interview, stating, “While recruiting and deterrence are secondary objectives, they are undoubtedly part of the equation.”
7. GoldenEye And Tomorrow Never Dies
Pierce Brosnan’s debut as James Bond in GoldenEye was a thrilling, escapist adventure that received full military backing. However, the military objected to the portrayal of a bumbling American admiral who falls prey to the film’s seductive villainess, Xenia Onatopp, leading to his demise.
The scene was quickly revised to alter the admiral’s nationality from American to Canadian. While modifying a character to avoid negative portrayals of military personnel might seem overly cautious, it paled in comparison to the script adjustments made for Bond’s next adventure.
In the initial draft of Tomorrow Never Dies, Bond plans to illegally parachute into Vietnam. Before his jump, a fictional CIA agent cautions him about the potential consequences, saying: “You know what will happen. It will be war. And maybe this time, maybe we’ll win.”
The Pentagon found the line troubling. At the time, the US had just reestablished diplomatic ties with Vietnam, and a seemingly innocuous line in a spy movie risked sparking an international dispute. The dialogue was rewritten and omitted from the final cut.
6. Clear And Present Danger
Released in 1994, Clear and Present Danger depicts a covert conflict between Colombian drug cartels and the US. Given the film’s expansive narrative, multiple military branches reviewed the script and demanded significant changes that shaped the final product.
The navy objected to a scene where naval personnel appeared indifferent to civilian casualties following an air strike. The DoD also expressed concerns about the portrayal of the Colombian government, fearing it could harm US-Latino relations.
In response, a scene depicting the navy bombing a civilian area was revised, and all mentions of the Colombian government collaborating with drug traffickers were eliminated. Additionally, the army insisted that their soldiers only engage with trained and well-armed adversaries.
All military branches involved in the film were also uneasy about the depiction of the US president. In the original script, the president authorizes covert operations in Colombia, which was against Congressional law. This likely mirrored the Reagan administration’s controversial support of the contras in Central America during the 1980s.
Reagan had secretly and illegally funneled funds to the contras to support their fight against Nicaragua’s Sandinista government, bypassing Congress. A similar scenario was initially written into Clear and Present Danger. To address these concerns, the president’s scenes were adjusted to make the operation classified yet lawful.
5. The Right Stuff
The Right Stuff, a 1983 movie added to the National Film Registry in 2013, chronicles the lives of navy, marine, and air force pilots involved in aeronautical research leading up to America’s first manned space mission. Adapted from Tom Wolfe’s 1979 novel, the film highlights the military’s unexpected openness about their motivations for collaborating with Hollywood.
The initial screenplay closely followed Tom Wolfe’s book, including vivid language that would have given the film a more mature tone. However, the US military was uncomfortable with the frequent use of profanity.
The producers received a letter from the military expressing concerns about the explicit language. They feared the film would receive an R rating, limiting its accessibility to teenagers, a key demographic for military recruitment. The Pentagon recognized the film’s potential to spark interest in military service among young viewers.
In response, the producers of The Right Stuff complied with the military’s request and significantly reduced the offensive language in the final cut.
41984.
Following World War II, the CIA financed numerous cultural works promoting democracy and opposing communism. These included books, magazines, and films.
In the 1950s, the CIA secured the film rights to George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four, resulting in a 1956 adaptation. Disregarding Orwell’s posthumous wishes, the film significantly altered the novel’s storyline.
One major change was the ending for Winston, the protagonist. In the film, Winston defiantly cries, “Down with Big Brother,” before being shot. In contrast, the novel concludes with Winston utterly broken by the totalitarian regime, admitting he “loved Big Brother” after his unsuccessful rebellion.
Orwell’s estate appeared discomfited by the CIA-backed film and withdrew it from circulation once the distribution deal ended. For decades, the film was thought lost until it resurfaced on YouTube in the early 2010s.
3. Zero Dark Thirty
The Oscar-nominated movie Zero Dark Thirty (2012) depicted the global search for Osama bin Laden. While crafting the script, an unusual collaboration emerged between the film’s writer, director, and the CIA’s counterterrorism team.
Shortly after bin Laden’s death, Mark Boal, the screenwriter of Zero Dark Thirty, started consulting with CIA officials to refine the script. Boal was even granted access to a special awards ceremony honoring the soldiers involved in the raid, despite the event including speeches that disclosed classified details.
US Senator Dianne Feinstein criticized the film for suggesting that the CIA’s enhanced interrogation techniques (EIT), like waterboarding, played a crucial role in locating bin Laden. Feinstein labeled the film’s narrative as a “misleading portrayal.”
Given the CIA’s deep involvement in the scriptwriting process, it’s unsurprising that Zero Dark Thirty aligns with the agency’s official position on EIT, which they claim was essential in obtaining critical intelligence during the hunt for bin Laden.
However, the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee contested this, stating there was no evidence that EIT yielded useful information in the search for bin Laden. After the script was finalized, the CIA requested seven changes, one of which directly impacted the portrayal of EIT in the film.
Boal was instructed to alter a scene where a detainee was menaced by a dog. The CIA asserted that they never employed dogs to frighten prisoners, despite historical evidence showing otherwise.
Photos from the Abu Ghraib scandal revealed military personnel, following US intelligence directives, using dogs to terrify inmates at the prison. However, this detail was omitted from the final cut of Zero Dark Thirty after Boal complied with the CIA’s request to remove the dog scene.
2. The Sum Of All Fears
Despite significant external influence, the 2002 film The Sum of All Fears managed to tell a cohesive story. Based on Tom Clancy’s 1991 novel, the plot revolves around radical East German separatists and a Palestinian terrorist cell plotting to detonate a bomb at a football stadium.
Even before scripting began, producer Mace Neufield faced criticism from the Council on American-Islamic Relations over the potential portrayal of Muslim terrorists. To avoid backlash, the Palestinian antagonists in Clancy’s book were replaced with a neo-Nazi organization.
Once the film secured Pentagon support, the production gained access to an extensive array of military equipment. This included B-2 bombers, F-16 fighter jets, military helicopters, and an aircraft carrier manned by 5,000 crew members. However, such resources came with the condition that the military influenced their on-screen depiction.
CIA and military advisors objected to a scene where an aircraft carrier was attacked and sunk by enemy forces. The military found it unacceptable to imply that an American vessel could be so easily defeated. Consequently, the scene was revised to show only the carrier’s flight operations being disabled during the attack.
1. The Quiet American
Nineteen Eighty-Four wasn’t the sole literary classic to see its film adaptation altered by the CIA. In the 1958 movie adaptation of Graham Greene’s The Quiet American, CIA operative Edward Lansdale collaborated with director Joseph Mankiewicz to counter the novel’s perceived anti-American sentiment.
Lansdale and Mankiewicz altered the story’s conclusion, shifting the blame for a city bombing from a US-backed general to the communists. Additionally, Aiden Pyle, the titular character, was transformed from an arms dealer in the book to a toy manufacturer in the film.
Greene was appalled by the film adaptation, labeling it a “propaganda piece for America.” He viewed it as a personal affront, stating: “One might think the film was intentionally crafted to undermine the book and its author.”
