Operation Hollywood

This interview is from 2004. With everything we are witnessing in the news today, it seems truer than ever, doesn’t it? -LW


How the Pentagon bullies movie producers into showing the U.S. military in the best possible light

—By Jeff Fleischer

To keep the Pentagon happy, some Hollywood producers have been known to turn villains into heroes, remove central characters, change politically sensitive settings, or add military rescues to movies that require none. There are no bad guys in the military. No fraternization between officers and enlisted troops. No drinking or drugs. No struggles against bigotry. The military and the president can’t look bad (though the State Department and Canada can).

“The only thing Hollywood likes more than a good movie is a good deal,” David Robb explains, and that’s why the producers of films like “Top Gun,” “Stripes” and “The Great Santini” have altered their scripts to accommodate Pentagon requests. In exchange, they get inexpensive access to the military locations, vehicles, troops and gear they need to make their movies.

During his years as a journalist for Daily Variety and The Hollywood Reporter, Robb heard about a quid-pro-quo agreement between the Pentagon and Hollywood studios, and decided to investigate. He combed through thousands of Pentagon documents, and interviewed dozens of screenwriters, producers and military officials. The result is his new book, “Operation Hollywood.”

Robb talked with MotherJones.com about deal-making that defines the relationship between Hollywood and the Pentagon.

MotherJones.com: How far back does collaboration between the U.S. military and Hollywood go?

David Robb: The current approval process was established right after World War II. Before that, the Pentagon used to help producers, but it wasn’t very formalized, like it is now. They helped producers going back to at least 1927. The very first movie that won an Oscar, “Wings,” — even that got military assistance.

MJ.com: What steps does a producer take to get assistance from the military? How does the process work?

DR: The first thing you have to do is send in a request for assistance, telling them what you want pretty specifically — ships, tanks, planes, bases, forts, submarines, troops — and when you want this material available. Then you have to send five copies of the script to the Pentagon, and they give it to the affected service branches — Army, Air Force, Navy, Marine Corps, Coast Guard. Then you wait and see if they like your script or not. If they like it, they’ll help you; if they don’t, they won’t. Almost always, they’ll make you make changes to the military depictions. And you have to make the changes that they ask for, or negotiate some kind of compromise, or you don’t get the stuff.

So then you finally get the approval, after you change your script to mollify the military, put some stuff in about how great it is to be in the military. Then when you go to shoot the film, you have to have what I call a “military minder” — but what they call a “technical advisor” — someone from the military on the set to make sure you shoot the film the way you agreed to. Normally in the filmmaking process, script changes are made all the time; if something isn’t working, they look at the rushes, and say, “let’s change this.” Well, if you want to change something that has to do with the military depictions, you’ve got to negotiate with them again. And they can say, “No, you can’t change it, this is the deal you agreed to.” As one of the technical advisors, Maj. David Georgi of the Army, said to me, “If they don’t do what I say, I take my toys and go away.”

After the film is completed, you have to prescreen the film for the Pentagon brass. So before it’s shown to the public, you have to show your movie to the generals and admirals, which I think any American should find objectionable — that their movies are being prescreened by the military.

MJ.com: At that stage, with the film finished, what can the military do if they have a problem?

DR: This happened on the Clint Eastwood movie “Heartbreak Ridge.” He finished the film, showed it to them, and they went through the roof. There was a scene in the script where he shoots an injured and defenseless Cuban soldier. They said, “You have to take that out. It’s a war crime. We don’t want that.” They hate having war crimes in movies. So with “Heartbreak Ridge,” Eastwood shot the film, and the scene ended up in the movie anyway. They said, “We told you to take that out.” He said he thought it was only a suggestion, that he didn’t know he had to. So they withdrew their approval. The film was still released, of course. But at the end of a movie that gets military assistance, there’s always a little tagline that says “thanks to the cooperation of the U.S. Army” or whatever branch. They said, “We’re not going to let you put that on there. We’re withdrawing cooperation.” And they can stop it from being shown in military theaters overseas or on bases in the U.S., which can really hurt the box office of a film. They’ve done this to numerous films. Also, at that time, Clint Eastwood was the chairman of Toys for Tots, the Marine Corps Christmas gift program for poor children. He wanted to screen the movie at a premiere to benefit Toys for Tots, and they said, “We’re not going to let you do that.” They can be very spiteful, they can hurt the box office of a film, and they don’t forget, either. So you do this at your peril. They can’t arrest you, they can’t stop the film. But if you want cooperation again, and you’ve screwed them like that before, you’re not going to get it. People almost never screw the Army on these deals.

MJ.com: What criteria does the Pentagon use in deciding whether to help a film?

DR: The most important one is that the film has to “aid in the retention and recruitment of personnel.” I don’t want to say that’s the whole thing, but it’s the main thing. They also say it has to reasonably depict military operations. And if it’s based on history, they say it has to be historically accurate, which is really a code. They’re much less interested in reality and accuracy than they are in positive images. They often try to change historical facts that are negative. Like with the movie “Thirteen Days,” which was very accurate but very negative toward the military during the Cuban missile crisis, showing that they would have taken us down the path toward World War III. During the negotiations with the producers, Peter Almond and Kevin Costner, the military tried to get them to tone down the bellicose nature of Gen. Maxwell Taylor and Gen. Curtis LeMay — who the record is very clear on, because before Nixon was taping in the White House, Kennedy was taping in the White House, and all the conversations from October 1962 are on tape. When Kennedy rejected LeMay’s insistence that we attack Cuba — when Kennedy said let’s put up a naval blockade, we don’t want to get into war — you can hear Curtis LeMay say, “This is the worst sellout since Munich.” He actually said that, when he didn’t think anybody was listening. Well, the military wanted to change it anyway, saying he was too bellicose and they had to tone it down. To their credit, Kevin Costner and Peter Almond stood up to the military, refused to buckle under, and made their film without military assistance.

MJ.com: Why don’t more producers take that approach?

DR: A lot of the studio heads tell their producers, “We’re not going to make this film unless we get military assistance, because it would be too expensive. So you’d better make sure the script conforms to what they want.” Also, what you don’t see in these documents is the self-censorship that goes with knowing you need their assistance and that they’re going to be your first audience. Writers write stuff to get that military assistance. So there’s no documents saying, “In “Black Hawk Down,” let’s leave out the whole part about the soldiers being dragged through the streets of Mogadishu.” Jerry Bruckheimer knows that if they have that in there, the military’s just going to tell them to take it out or they won’t help them. I asked Ridley Scott, the director, if “Black Hawk Down” could have been made without military assistance. He said, “Yeah. We just would have had to call it ‘Huey Down’.” So there’s this self-censorship. When you know the government is looking over your shoulder while you’re typing, that’s a very bad situation.

MJ.com: Aside from showing war crimes, what are some of the other things the military balks at?

DR: They never — at least that I’ve seen — help movies with aliens. Usually in those movies, the military is shown to be ineffective in combating the aliens, and it’s always some tricky, enterprising person who figures out how to defeat them. Like in “Mars Attacks!,” a grandma playing Slim Whitman over her radio blows the aliens’ heads up. Well, the military didn’t want to help them. They don’t want to help any movie that shows them being ineffective, even in combating aliens. They have no sense of humor! They wouldn’t help “Independence Day.” The military could not get over the fact that one of the key plot points was that the U.S. was secretly working on a spaceship captured at Area 51, so the film ended up not getting assistance.

Another thing, they don’t like drinking or drugs in the military. They’ll make you change that. Like in “Stripes,” they made them take out all drug references, and the original script had lots of drug references. They don’t want to see any pot smoking, even in Vietnam. The former Navy Secretary James Webb, after he left that post, he became a book writer. He’d been a Marine in Vietnam, and one of his books was semi-autobiographical, with many of the things he saw and knew for a fact happened in Vietnam: fragging of officers, smoking pot, burning Vietnamese villages. He had a screenplay and wanted to turn it into a movie. They said, “No, you have to change all this stuff,” and he wouldn’t do it. So that’s a film that never got made. Many films have never been made because they couldn’t get assistance.

MJ.com: In the book, you give examples of how the Pentagon won’t allow military characters to be depicted as bad guys.

DR: Right. For example, there was an HBO movie “The Tuskegee Airmen,” where the military made them replace the villain. This was a movie about the first black airmen during World War II, where the bad guy was a general at the base where these guys were training, and the good guy was a white congressman. Well, the army said they didn’t like that, so they ended up changing it. I have a letter where the producers wrote to the military, to Phil Strub, who’s the head of the Pentagon’s film office. The producers wrote, “The following changes are in the works and will soon be fully executed by the writer. It is our intention to reverse the characterization of General Stevenson and Senator Powell, making the senator the source of bigotry. General Stevenson will be revealed as someone who is loyal to the efforts of the Tuskegee Airmen.” Now when people saw that film, they had no idea that the good guy and the bad guy had been reversed, just so the military could meet its recruiting goals.

MJ.com: You also talk about the military targeting children by encouraging pro-military storylines in shows like “The Mickey Mouse Club” and “Lassie.”

DR: In those cases, they recognized that children are the future recruits. With the “Mickey Mouse Club,” it’s kind of a long story, but they used to show these little documentary films called “Mouse Reels.” For example, they took these kids out on the U.S.S. Nautilus, which was the first nuclear submarine. And there’s a Pentagon document that says, “This is an excellent opportunity to introduce a whole new generation to the nuclear Navy.” It was all military propaganda to show how “child-friendly” nuclear submarines are – there’s hardly any radiation, the food is great, they even have a jukebox that plays the “Mickey Mouse Club March” in the cafeteria.

As far as reaching children, I think one of the best examples — and they’re very candid in these documents, because I don’t think they ever expected anybody to be looking at this stuff — there was this movie “The Right Stuff” about the early days of the space program. The original script was filled with vulgarity and cussing, and the military sent the producers a letter. It reads, “The obscene language used seems to guarantee an ‘R’ rating. If distributed as an ‘R’, it cuts down on the teenage audience, which is a prime one to the military services when our recruiting bills are considered.” Of course, an ‘R’ rating means children under 17 have to be accompanied by a parent, so a lot of 16- and 17-year-olds couldn’t see this picture. And the Air Force wanted young people to see this so they’d get a good, positive image of the military and join up. So they changed it.

MJ.com: Among the films you looked at, which went through the most radical change from the script to the final, military-assisted movie?

DR: There was a movie called “Air Strike” by a guy named Cy Roth. Now, Ed Wood is often credited as being the worst director in Hollywood history, but Cy Roth would really give him a run for his money. Roth decided around 1953 that he’d made a Western, he’d made a space movie, now he wanted to make a war movie. This movie was set on a World War II aircraft carrier, and the lead characters were a young Jewish flyer and a young black flyer who are constantly being subjected to anti-Semitism and racism on the ship. The military said, “No, we don’t want to show any kind of racism or anti-Semitism in this picture, you’ve got to change that.” They also said, “We don’t want a World War II-era picture, we want a movie set in the modern jet age.” And Roth went nuts. He called his congressman, he wrote a letter to President Eisenhower — and the day after the White House got his letter of complaint, they sicced the FBI on him to see whether he was a Communist or not. Well, he finally caved in; he made the picture the way they wanted. So it was no blacks, no Jews, no propellers. If you look at this film, it’s so bad, it looks like a home movie shot on an aircraft carrier. So this film was completely changed.

MJ.com: You argue that this military screening process violates the First Amendment.

DR: The First Amendment doesn’t just give people the right to free speech; fundamentally, it prevents the government from favoring one form of speech over another. There’s a great 1995 Supreme Court case called Rosenberger v. University of Virginia that says, “Discrimination against speech because of its message is presumed to be unconstitutional. It is axiomatic that the government may not regulate speech based on the substantive content of the message it conveys. In the realm of private speech or expression, government regulation may not favor one speaker over another.” And yet that’s what they’re doing every day. Not just 50 years ago on “Air Strike,” but right now. This is a holdover from the Cold War, and it should be abolished. Or at least Congress, which has oversight over the Pentagon, should really look into what’s going on.

Congress has only looked into it twice, when Robert Aldrich made a stink about not getting assistance for the movie “Attack,” and then again in the 1960s when it turned out the government had footed the entire bill for all the military stuff on John Wayne’s “The Green Berets.” In these two investigations, the Pentagon basically said it’s not their intention to influence the content of movies. And Congress just accepted that. If they looked at these documents, they would see that clearly the intent is to influence the movies.

Major Georgi, who had been the military minder on many movies, said that one of the targets of this program is Congress; that Congress goes to movies, and that when they see positive images of the military, that makes it easier for them to vote for that $500 billion military appropriation. They also target voters, the people who are really footing the bill. Really, if you talk to soldiers and sailors and Marines, many of them will tell you they joined the military because of some movie that they saw. The former head of the Marine Corps film office, Matt Morgan, he told me he joined the military after seeing “Top Gun.” After “Top Gun” came out, there was a huge spike in recruitment for the Navy flying program. They know that it works. People are going off to war and getting killed, in part because of some movie that they saw that was adjusted by the military.

MJ.com: What would it realistically take to change this system?

DR: I think that if just 50 people wrote their congressman and asked, “what’s going on here?,” I think it wouldn’t take much. It’s not going to happen otherwise. The Writer’s Guild, whose stated mission is to protect the creative and economic rights of its members, has never made a single protest that its members’ scripts are being manipulated and changed by the military. Congress has done nothing. Hollywood likes the way it is, and the military likes the way it is; they don’t want to change it. The only people who have a real interest in this are the American people. They’re being saturated with military propaganda in their mainstream movies and TV shows, and they don’t even know. But I think there’s a very good argument that can be made that over the past 50 years, this chronic sanitization of the military and what war is has affected the American character; that we’re now a more warlike people than we were 50 years ago. Clearly, there are also other reasons, but I think when the world’s most powerful medium colludes with the world’s most powerful military to put propaganda in mainstream films and television shows, that has to have an effect on the American psyche.

Source.

SHELL GAME: This Is Why Michael Hastings Was Murdered And Eric Holder Stepped Down [Video]

“19,000 Swiss Bank Accounts fund Terrorism.

Part of the reason behind Eric Holder’s immediate retirement.”

Discussion of the book SHELL GAME: A Military Whistleblowing Report to the U.S. Congress Exposing the Betrayal and Cover-Up by the U.S. Government of the Union Bank of Switzerland-Terrorist Threat Finance Connection to Booz Allen Hamilton and U.S. Central Command ~ 2LT Scott Bennett 11th Psychological Operations Battalion (retired)

Background: Scott Bennett is a U.S. Army Special Operations Officer (11th Psychological Operations Battalion, Civil Affairs-Psychological Operations Command), and a global psychological warfare-counterterrorism analyst, formerly with defense contractor Booz Allen Hamilton.

He received a Direct Commission as an Officer, held a Top Secret/Sensitive Compartmentalized Information (TS/SCI) security clearance, and worked in the highest levels of international counterterrorism in Washington DC and MacDill Air Force Base in Tampa, Florida. He has worked at U.S. Special Operations Command, U.S. Central Command, the State Department Coordinator for Counterterrorism, and other government agencies. He served in the G.W. Bush Administration from 2003 to 2008, and was a Social Science Research Fellow at the Heritage Foundation. His writings and lectures seek to enhance global awareness and understanding of modern psychological warfare, the international intelligence.

Source.

The CDC, NIH & Bill Gates Own the Patents On Existing Ebola & Related Vaccines: Mandatory Vaccinations Are Near

Dave Hodges blows the lid of yet another hoax that has been unleashed on the public. This time, the folks behind the Ebola hoax are exposed. -LW

Bill Gates: King of Vaccines

I have previously reported that Monsanto, or Monsatan as many call them, has partnered with the Department of Defense to use a proxy third party company to develop a vaccine against Ebola. The seed money began at $1.5 million. The value of the deal could grow to an estimated $86 million dollars. The company’s name is Tekmira Pharmaceuticals Corporation (TKMR) (TKM.TO), a leading developer of RNA interference (RNAi) therapeutics. “TKM-Ebola, an anti-Ebola virus RNAi therapeutic, is being developed under a $140 million contract with the U.S. Department of Defense’s Medical Countermeasure Systems BioDefense Therapeutics (MCS-BDTX) Joint Product Management Office”.  As breaking and shocking of a news story as this has the potential to be, the real story is that this is not the most important part of the Ebola threat which has invaded the United States. The truth of the matter is that these unholy and untrustworthy associations, when it comes to “fighting” the Ebola virus, represent the mere tip of the iceberg.

The more one digs into who is behind the creation and the development of vaccines for treating Ebola, the more the conspiracy networks widen. The most amazing fact is how incredibly easy it was to locate this information. I want to be clear on this point, Ebola was invented, a vaccine for Ebola has existed for 8-10 years, some government sponsored institutions as well as some of the global elite have positioned themselves to profit enormously from the spread of the virus and the development of and dissemination ofmandatory Ebola vaccines and the imposition of total martial law in the process. Here is the proof.

Human ebola virus species and compositions and methods thereof
CA 2741523 A1

Amazingly, the CDC owns “the” patent on Ebola and all future strains.

The “SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION” section of the patent document also clearly claims that the U.S. government is claiming “ownership” over all Ebola viruses that share as little as 70% similarity with the Ebola it “invented”:

Why would a government organization claim to have “invented” this infectious disease and then claim a monopoly over its exploitation for commercial use? It is clear that the CDC plans to claim royalties on Ebola vaccines. This certainly increases the likelihood that thevaccines will become mandatory, thus increasing the profit potential for the patent holders.

Publication number CA2741523 A1
Publication type Application
Application number CA 2741523
PCT number PCT/US2009/062079
Publication date Apr 29, 2010
Filing date Oct 26, 2009
Priority date Oct 24, 2008
Also published as EP2350270A2, 4 More »
Inventors Jonathan S. TownerStuart T. NicholJames A. ComerThomas G. KsiazekPierre E. Rollin
Applicant Jonathan S. Towner, 5 More »
Export Citation BiBTeXEndNoteRefMan
Classifications (21), Legal Events (1)
External Links: CIPOEspacenet

Clearly, Ebola is manmade and this patent proves this contention. Why does the CDC need to own the patent on Ebola? Perhaps, we should ask Bill Gates why he is donating $50 million to the UN and the CDC in the name of fighting Ebola (see video below). The CDC has partners in the fight against Ebola, namely, Crucell, the National Institute of Health (NIH) and the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases (USAMRIID) and, of course, Bill and Melinda Gates.

Since when would Gates not expect a return on his investment? Gates and Michael Bloomberg have already contributed large sums of money to numerous vaccination causes such as the Global Polio Eradication Initiative originally launched in 1988 by the World Health Organization (WHO), Rotary International, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF). The return on investment has been impressive.

Gates has announced that he plans to vaccinate every child in the third world with multiple vaccines, which could result in a dramatic population reduction of 10-15%. Do you realize the enormous profits that can be realized by vaccinating every child in the third world? If we apply Gates’ penchant for investing in causes which produce a hefty “return on investment” (ROI) then one could reasonably suspect that Gates is positioning himself to profit on the $50 million he has invested in the Ebola cause which conveniently includes the CDC, the holder of the patent for Ebola.

The NIH presently holds all patents on Ebola vaccines. Crucell is much like Tekimara is to Monsanto in that they are fronting the science for the Ebola vaccine treatment patents.

What You Are Not Being Told: Fast facts From Crucell’s Website

  • Crucell is developing an Ebola vaccine in collaboration with the Vaccine Research Center (VRC) of the NIH National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID). It has been shown to completely protect monkeys against the virus with a single dose of the vaccine.
  • Under the terms of the agreement with VRC, Crucell has an option for exclusive worldwide commercialization rights to the Ebola vaccine.
  • Crucell’s Ebola vaccine entered Phase I clinical trials in Q3 2006.  Two groups of 16 volunteers were enrolled and vaccinated. The study showed safety and immunogenicity at the doses evaluated.
  • In October 2008, Crucell secured a NIAID/NIH award to advance the development of Ebola and Marburg vaccines, with the ultimate aim of developing a multivalent filovirus vaccine.
  • The award provides funding of up to $30 million, with additional options, worth a further $40 million.

Do you understand how much we are being lied to by the media on this topic? The work on an Ebola virus, sanctioned by the holder of the patent for the vaccine, the NIH), has been ongoing since 2004 with clinical trials in 2006. This explains why the CDC and the NIH are bringing Ebola patients into the country to treat. The moment that an Ebola patient crosses the U.S. border, they become the intellectual property of the CDC, NIH and Bill and Melinda Gates! How can we not believe that this is the Hegelian Dialectic run amok in a case of problem creation, solution to the problem and reaction to the problem?
The involvement of the USAMRIID is noteworthy because the Army has long been rumored to have created Ebola and, for purposes of experimentation, implanted the artificial virus in Zaire in 1977.

When an unsuspecting public is finally told of the existence of an Ebola vaccine, the Global Fund will be in charge of the distribution of the vaccine. Interestingly, Bill Gates has donated a total of $560 million dollars to the Global Fund. The Global Fund has also positioned themselves to be in charge of the distribution of the “newly developed”, and not yet announced vaccines for TB and HIV.  Since the goal is the vaccination of every man, woman and child on the planet with multiple vaccines, Gates’ $560 contribution to the Global Fund is chump change compared to the expected ROI. However, on deck is the Ebola virus.

The Political Direction of This Crisis

I mentioned in Part One of this series that my best military insider source has told me that the Department of Homeland Security has taken over the plans for mandatory Ebola vaccinations and the imposition of martial law. I also mentioned in Part One how very few soldiers and police officers will actually realize that they are actually enforcing martial law since they are merely reacting to a “health crisis”, albeit contrived, which will involve severe travel restrictions and the quarantining of segments of the population of the country. If one really wants to appreciate the depth of this conspiracy and the players involved, I would recommend visiting the Crucell website which is linked above.

The operational details of the mandatory vaccination program will be forthcoming in a future article.

Dave Hodges is the Editor and Host of The Common Sense Show..

Source.

The Bradley Manning Story You Don’t Know

My jaw dropped as I watched this video. I can’t describe the effect it had on me—and it remains unresolved since 2007!

Bradley Manning at 22

Now he looks like this

We really have not paid enough attention to this case.

A soldier who came across evidence of war crimes and released it is being called a traitor with pundits clamoring for his death and prison officials administering forms of torture.

The story of Bradley Manning.

You may think you know the details,
but there’s far more to it.

Watch the video at the link below.

Bradley Manning; Forgotten Man