Breaking News:

Hollywood Makes an Anti-Military Film!

David C. Stolinsky, MD
Dec. 14, 2009

“Brothers” is an interesting film. The acting is excellent, but the problem is the subject matter. Yet again, Hollywood demonstrates its bias against the American military.

The story involves a Marine captain played by Tobey Maguire, his wife played by Natalie Portman, and the captain’s brother played by Jake Gyllenhaal. The captain is about to deploy to Afghanistan, but before doing so he visits his brother, who is being released from prison − apparently for robbery.

The captain is stereotypically rigid, while the brother is charming but irresponsible. Their father, played by Sam Shepard, is an even more rigid retired Marine, who of course loves his Marine son and has no use for his ne’er-do-well son.

The captain deploys to Afghanistan, where his helicopter is shot down. The notification team arrives to report that he has been killed in action. The brother develops a sense of responsibility − as well as an attraction for his sister-in-law − and soon becomes a surrogate father to his two young nieces.

But the captain survives, and with a private is captured and tortured by the Taliban. The private is overcome by fear and makes a video for his captors, denouncing American intervention. The captain refuses to do so. The Taliban hand him a piece of pipe, and tell him they will kill him if he does not kill the private − on video. After hesitating briefly, he beats the private to death.

Eventually the captain is liberated and comes home, while the incriminating video disappears. His wife is ambivalent about his return, while his older daughter exclaims, “Why couldn’t you just stay dead?” He accuses his brother of sleeping with his wife. Finally the captain takes a pistol, which he keeps unsecured despite his two young daughters, and threatens to kill his brother and himself. The police take him to the psychiatric ward. He reveals his guilty secret to his wife, and we are left wondering what will become of them.

These are the lessons of the film:

● Our casualty-notification procedures are so careless that missing personnel are reported as dead, despite the lack of a body or a witness.

● Our military officers are so rigid and unloving that their wives and children prefer convicted felons as husbands and fathers.

● Our officers are unable to motivate and inspire their men, but robotically repeat “Be strong!”

● Our enlisted men are so ill-prepared that they collapse in tears when captured.

● Our officers are so immoral and disloyal that they beat to death an enlisted man for whom they are responsible − for a chance to go home.

● Our veterans are so damaged that they make poor husbands and fathers, often bullying their sons to follow them into the military.

● Our wars are so senseless that those participating in them emerge with psychological damage, but with little pride or sense of accomplishment.

If that is Hollywood’s idea of supporting our troops, I hesitate to imagine what hostility looks like. But this is nothing new. Since the 1960s, Hollywood has replaced its earlier patriotic stance with a long series of films that are anti-military at best, and frankly anti-American at worst.

For example, take "Seven Days in May," a 1964 film about a military coup that almost overthrows the president, because he wants to sign an arms-reduction treaty with the Soviets. And there is "The Package," a 1989 film about a military coup that almost kills the president, because he wants to sign an arms-reduction treaty with the Soviets. Sense a pattern here?

Then we have “First Blood,” a 1982 film about a mentally disturbed, unemployed veteran who is irritated by police and goes on a killing spree. And there is “The Hunted,” a 2003 film about a mentally disturbed, unemployed veteran who is irritated by police and goes on a killing spree. Yes, there’s a pattern.

In reality, veterans are not more likely to become murderers. The homicide rate is as likely to fall as to rise after a war. Active-duty troops have lower rates of homicide and suicide than do civilian males of the same age group. This is obviously true − the military rejects those with records of crime or mental illness, and it discharges criminals, alcoholics and drug users.

Remember “Full Metal Jacket,” in which the drill instructor holds up Lee Harvey Oswald to his trainees as a model marksman? In reality, our military has always been loyal to the civilian leadership − though the reverse has not always been true.

And there are “In the Line of Fire,” “Under Siege” and “The Rock,” which contain that Hollywood staple – the crazed ex-military or ex-CIA man who runs around killing people.

Don’t forget “American Beauty,” in which the retired Marine next door is a sadistic, homicidal neo-Nazi. Shamefully, Hollywood seems unable to distinguish the “Marines’ Hymn” from the “Horst Wessel Song.”

Then we have “Three Kings” and “Buffalo Soldiers,” which show U.S. soldiers as thieves. The latter title besmirches the nickname of the Ninth and Tenth Cavalry, which patrolled the Southwest and were made up of black troopers. Apparently liberals believe that being anti-military allows them to insult the memory of brave African Americans.

There is “Spartan,” where an Army officer tries to rescue the president’s daughter from kidnappers. But the girl is a political embarrassment, so our government decides to let her die – then tries to kill the hero to shut him up. And there is “Courage Under Fire,” where our troops shoot their female officer, then abandon her to be captured by the enemy.

Perhaps you saw “Syriana,” in which the only sympathetic character is a suicide bomber who blows up an oil terminal. Then there is “The Constant Gardner,” in which pharmaceutical companies kill Africans. Good guys blow up oil terminals and kill people. Bad guys build oil terminals and develop life-saving drugs. Talk about an inverted moral compass.

Then we have “Man on Fire,” in which the hero is so disturbed by his work for the CIA that he becomes a suicidal alcoholic. And we have the “Bourne” series, in which the hero is so disturbed by his work for the CIA that he develops amnesia. There’s a positive view of government service.

Finally we have “Jarhead,” which shows Marines as irresponsible juveniles. And we have “Rendition,” which shows American agents seizing an innocent citizen of Middle Eastern ethnicity, then torturing him to extract information he does not have. There’s a positive view of the war on terror. Excuse me, now it’s called “overseas contingency operations,” words hardly designed to strike fear into the hearts of our enemies.

If these films were seen only by Americans, they would evoke contempt and ingratitude for veterans. But they are seen worldwide. Do we want to advertise ourselves so repulsively? Do we want to alienate friends and encourage enemies?

If I am very lucky, I may live long enough to see a Hollywood film that shows our military in a positive light. It is one thing to portray the psychological and other problems that may come with military service. It is quite another to magnify these problems to the exclusion of the positive aspects.

What about duty, honor, country? What about comradeship? What about loyalty unto death? That about Semper Fi? What about it, Hollywood? Even liberal President Obama used his Nobel Peace Prize address to praise the role of the U.S. military in overcoming tyranny. Why can’t you find a good word to say about those who are risking their lives for us all? Now that would be news.

Dr. Stolinsky writes on political and social issues. He can be contacted at dstol@prodigy.net.

www.stolinsky.com