What Has Been the Influence of the War on Terrorism in Hollywood's Output since September 11, 2001 - Coursework Example

Hollywood Since 9/11 It would be preposterous to propose that Hollywood films do not as a collective entity serve to reinforce the prevailing ideology of America. Despite the continual assault upon the bulk of Hollywood films as corrupting and subversive influences, and despite the embarrassment of the communist witch hunt in the entertainment industry in the 40s and 50s, the simple fact is that mainstream Hollywood film has always been pro-American, meaning it has consistently touted democracy and free enterprise and the contemporary social values during the time in which each film was produced. Few can argue convincingly that film and television have not been the principal resource for transmitting ideological truths to the masses in any industrialised country. The events that took place on September 11, 2001 and the subsequent response by the Bush administration and Congress follow in the tradition of such other watershed moments in American history as the attack on Pearl Harbor and the social upheaval and turbulence that marked the decade of the 1960s. Just as in those cases, Hollywood was forced to confront the dramatic impact upon society engendered by the war on terror and all that phrase encompasses, and that response has increasingly reflected the bitter divide that results of the political response to the threats of Islamic terrorism has created. Many Americans might reject the suggestion that Hollywood films made in the wake of Pearl Harbor were as calculatingly propagandistic as the films made in Nazi Germany, but the major difference between them is one of artistic merit. Both German and American producers responded to the need to rally the support for their oppositional causes by telling unambiguous stories dominated a series of dualities that starkly defined good and evil. That the films produced in Hollywood managed in most cases to retain enough artistry that many can rightly be referred to as classics today doubtlessly has much to do with the fact that even wartime propaganda has a bottom life profit motive in Hollywood. Germans had little choice but to digest Nazi propaganda; war movies out of Hollywood had to compete with every other genre for entertainment value. The point, however, is that war movies promoting the Allied cause began appearing in movie theaters almost immediately after the bombing of Pearl Harbor; there was never any debate or controversy over the sensitivity of dramatising that event. This fact of WWII stands in direct contrast to movies released in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. The very first responses from Hollywood to those tragedies set the stage for the way movies would respond to 9/11 for the next few years. The day after the attacks it was announced that the release date for the latest movie starring action hero Arnold Schwarzenegger, unfortunately titled Collateral Damage, would be moved back from October 5. In addition, the movie’s tagline “The War Hits Home” would be dropped from promotional materials. The most controversial decision, however, revolved around the much-anticipated Spider-Man movie. A coming attractions preview that had featured a scene in which the twin towers of the World Trade Center was featured prominently was immediately withdrawn (Hill). During the initial aftermath of the attacks, Hollywood seemed most eager to respond to the potential threats of insensitivity by indulging in denial. Footage of the World Trade Center was digitally manipulated to remove them from the skyline of Manhattan in such television shows as Friends, or else scenes showing the towers were edited out completely. Hollywood seemed to be reversing standard operating procedure developed in response to the Pearl Harbor attacks by appearing to be willing to rewrite history entirely. Rather than explain why the twin towers were no longer there, producers preferred just to pretend they had never existed at all. These initial alterations of the most iconic image of the 9/11 attacks serve as a symbol for the way that Hollywood seemed to view the attacks themselves as simply too traumatic to directly comment upon. For the next three or four years Hollywood would appear to directly ignore actual events of 9/11, but quickly adopted a more subtle approach to adopting the political ideology engendered by the Bush administration as they launched their war on terror. Shortly after the attacks, a collection of Hollywood producers and studio executives formed the Hollywood 9/11 International Messaging Group specifically at the bequest of White House with the specifically outlined mission of producing entertainment with pro-American themes and messages (Carter). Over time, of course, it became increasingly obvious what constituted a pro-American message: either you supported the policies of the Bush administration or you were supporting the terrorists. The expected increase in demonising Muslims by turning them into stock villains never materialised, although several television shows and movies did occasionally feature such characters. For the most part, however, Hollywood seemed to prefer to remove such characters from their films as they had images of the World Trade Center. The most immediate impact of the war on terror in Hollywood in the months between the 9/11 attacks and the invasion of Iraq had less to do with the content of film itself than with the noticeable absence of movies on the subject and the correlative effect of a kind of censorship on expressing dissident viewpoints. Hollywood during this period reflected quite accurately the overwhelmingly public perspective on patriotism that routinely arises during times of war. No major American film or television showed dared to question any aspect of the war on terror during a period when it was made perfectly clear that the slogan Support the Troops really meant support the President’s policies. This empty, uncritical support of the actions and policies of Pres. Bush became the status quo for the majority of Americans still reeling from the 9/11 attacks and confused by the conflation of those attacks and the overblown fears of WMDs in Iraq. Daring to suggest that supporting the troops and supporting the policies of Pres. Bush were not synonymous essentially became a very real risk for any entertainer. The most notorious instance of what could happen to an entertainer who crossed this line was, of course, the infamous case of the country singing trio the Dixie Chicks. On March 10, 2003 singer Natalie Maines told a London audience the band members were ashamed that George W. Bush was from their home state Immediately after this comment, another band member added that the band supported the troops 100%. The added comment of support was rarely mentioned in press reports, which focused on Maines’ criticism of Pres. Bush and became such a controversy that the band subsequently found their music disappearing from country music radio stations across America (Dixie Chicks Pulled From Air After Bashing Bush). The incident was not isolated. Actors who spoke out against the Bush policies soon discovered themselves the target of virulent op/ed pieces from conservative pundits and even received death threats and hate mail (Svetkey). The conspiracy to silence dissident viewpoints reflected the apparent decision by Hollywood to refuse explicit references to terrorism or war, and even to manipulate public opinion against movies that suggested there were complexities in the political world that had created the present environment. The best example of this revolves around movie star George Clooney. Clooney was one of the first major movie stars to speak out against the invasion of Iraq subsequently become the target of un-American charges from conservative radio commentators and Fox News. The assault upon Clooney would take a less personal turn, but more accurately reflect the atmosphere in the film industry with the release of his movie Syriana. Syriana is a densely layered film that demands more from its audience that the standard Hollywood blockbuster as it attempts to explain the geopolitical complexities of the oil industry and how it is shaped both by politics, greed and religious faith. The backlash against the film extended well beyond the expected attacks from conservatives and big-business proponents, but the real damage to the commercial prospects of such an oppositional perspective was more subtle than the heavy-handed critiques from the Right. This assault on the anti-administration message of Syriana was accomplished not by attacking the message itself, but by scaring off potential moviegoers with claims that the movie was too convoluted, confusing and hard to follow (Cohen). Movie audiences accustomed to easily digestible fare that starkly separated the factions of good from evil such as the Lord of the Rings trilogy or the abundance of comic book superhero adaptations were effectively warned to stay away from Syriana because it required thought and attention. The ultimate result, of course, was that the message reached mostly those who were already sympathetic. The story of Syriana is symptomatic of the whole of post-9/11 Hollywood. The overwhelming bulk of product that has been produced in Hollywood for the theater and television since 9/11 has been noticeably absent of moral ambiguities and the incidents of 9/11 themselves were studiously avoided. The studios preferred to bankroll a never-ending series of special effects extravaganzas, romantic comedies and historical dramatisations. For most of the years since 2001, in fact, Hollywood has preferred to virtually ignore the political realities of the contemporary world. Moviegoers have been invited to step into worlds of pure imagination or back in time to eras of other political strife. On television the rise of the reality show presented an unnoticed irony in which none of the supposed reality of these shows appear to even acknowledge the reality that exists outside their environs. Protest songs have been conspicuously absent from the catalog of songs performed on American Idol; the contestants on Survivor stand in ridiculous contrast to the very real stories of survival taking place in Iraq or even on American soil in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. The reluctance to address the events of 9/11 directly was only an element in Hollywood’s overall reluctance to address the reality of the changes in America as a result of both the attacks themselves and the government’s response. Rather than embracing the war on terror as a suitable subject for cinematic analysis, Hollywood for the most part preferred to ignore reality. Only with the change in attitude toward the policies of the Bush administration, the revelation of manipulation of intelligence and information by the White House to create support for the Iraq invasion, and the subsequent unpopularity of Pres. Bush has Hollywood finally began to directly confront the events of 9/11 and the policies that have led to the war on terror. And even these belated dramatic representations have come under assault for being insensitive to the victims (Gilbey). In recent years there have been high profile movies about firefighters trapped in the rubble of the collapsed World Trade Center towers, and about the events that took place on Flight 93, as well a documentaries and television docudramas. While Hollywood has finally decided to address 9/11 explicitly, these films still retain the aura of promoting the pro-administration line, as well as continuing the tradition of deletion. For instance, the movie World Trade Center presents absolutely no portrayal of the actual attacks. The films made about Flight 93 have been constructed on the official version of the story, despite the fact that many of the details commonly assumed to be true have come under suspicion (Reel Faces “United 93”). At present, Hollywood shows no indication of a willingness to confront the issues related to the 9/11 attacks that directly confronts the issues that that may have caused them. The atmosphere is still too delicate at present to make a film that in any way suggests that the Bush administration could have done more, or that America’s long-term foreign policy approaches toward the Middle East may in any way be responsible for contributing to a political state of mind that could lead to such acts. There doesn’t appear to be much likelihood that Hollywood will produce a film in the near-future that accurately addresses the role played by the Reagan/Bush administrations in supporting the Afghan rebellion against the Soviet invasion that led to ascension of power of Osama Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda. The future of Hollywood appears to be one that will continue for some time to propagate the pro-American sentiment while studiously ignoring any murky political underpinnings on its part that played a role in creating the tensions in the Middle East today. Works Cited Carter, Bill. “TRACES OF TERROR: ADVERTISING; Hollywood Group Offers First TV Spot on Tolerance Aimed at Arab World.” New York Times. 5 September 2002. Retrieved January 6, 2008 from http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9507E7DC143EF936A3575AC0 A9649C8B63 Cohen, Richard. “Hollywood’s Crude Cliches.” Washington Post. December 13, 2005. Retrieved January 6, 2008 from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp- dyn/content/article/2005/12/12/AR2005121201251.html “Dixie Chicks Pulled From Air After Bashing Bush.” Reuters. March 14, 2000. Retrieved January 6 from http://www.cnn.com/2003/SHOWBIZ/Music/03/14/dixie.chicks.reut/ Hill, Logan. “9/11: Going, going, gone.” New York. Retrieved January 6, 2008 from http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/people/columns/intelligencer/n_10412/ Reel Faces. “United 93.” ChasingTheFrog.com. Retrieved January 6, 2008 from http://www.chasingthefrog.com/reelfaces/united93.php. Svetkey, Benjamin. “War Of Words: Sean Penn claims there's a new Hollywood blacklist, but is there even a backlash against A-list protesters?” Entertainment Weekly. Feb 28, 2003 i698 p12+ Read More