Tvrtković 1

Student: Mak Tvrtković

Professor: Ass. Prof. Sven Cvek

Cultural aspects of American neoliberalism

15th of June 2018

Portrayal of war for capital

In the first part of the essay I will focus on the portrayal of war in the 70's and 80's

classic movies and in the second part I will touch upon on some of the more recent portrayals

to try to determine whether or not they have adopted the post-modernistic trait of different

perspectives characteristic of literature, or simply put whether or not the critique of the

American waged war exists and if so, is it a critique of the capitalistic society itself. The

question can also be phrased as “do the popular American war movies question the cause of

engagement?”.

Since the early beginning of the movie industry, this form of art had a major impact on

the formation of the public opinion, especially in the United States where Hollywood was the

main place for the newly created stars, directors and producers who played the most important

role in the film business. With the rise of television in the world, the media gained an

important role, not only in covering and transmitting current events and happenings, but also

in the forming of the public opinion and even advertising certain political campaigns.

Steven J. Ross argues that “Few contemporary institutions have had a greater effect on
molding popular understandings of daily events than film and television. Movies have
played an especially vital role in the battle for control of the mind’s eye. Throughout
the twentieth century, many Americans got their first glimpse of what a strike, union
leader, communist, or mass movement looked like by watching movies. Film is likely
to determine our vision of the world, but the repetition of similar images over and over
 Tvrtković 2

again until they become commonplace does create a way of seeing the world—a
discourse—that appears as the dominant reality to many Americans.” (Ross, 82).

This is also one of the subjects that John Carlow Rowe deals with in his essay Culture,

U.S Imperialism and Globalization, specifically mentioning the role of media and the movies

and the way they represent war in the United States of America's history. Rowe expands to

elaborate the “Vietnam-effect”, which took the culture by storm after the notorious Vietnam

war.

Most of the wars had widespread coverage in the U.S. and were thus featured in many

films which served to glorify the sacrifice of Americans and reveal the evil nature of the

enemy. However, unlike the World Wars and the Korean war, which, because of the deep

embeddedness of the American dream ideal in the consciousness of the public, were not

disputed as much, the Vietnam War spawned the flowering of the movie industry and the

creation of films in which the anti-war sentiment of the part of the public was reflected in. In

his article “The American Film Industry and Vietnam” Michael Paris argues that “soon after

America became involved in Vietnam, new forces began to affect the film industry and

prevent it from operating in its usual wartime role – justifying, explaining and encouraging

the war effort” (Paris, “The American Film industry and Vietnam”). However, before the

1970s, criticism of the American media and parts of the society did not give the anti-Vietnam

War screenings the credit they deserved. Still, as Paris states, the real development of anti-war

sentiments and its representation in the movies begun with 1968 and the Tet offensive, “by

1968, it was no longer possible for the film industry to deal with the war in this

straightforward and traditional manner. It had become the most divisive event in American

history since the Civil War. The Tet offensive had convinced many that the war could not be

won thus strengthening the anti-war movement which was becoming so widespread it could

no longer be ignored” (Paris, “The American Film industry and Vietnam”). The main reason
 Tvrtković 3

for the blossoming of the anti-war movie industry was the profit orientation of the America's

cinema business which relied on the war dissent of the main cinema goers aged under 30

years, a year group that was supposed to be drafted to Vietnam.

In order for this highly conservative industry like the American cinema not to be

upfront about the dissent, some directors used devices like the television and radio coverages

of the war in the background of the main action to make dealing with the subject of the war

itself as politically ambiguous as possible. Another similar approach involved the

representation of the students' protests in the movies. While Rowe distinguishes movies like

The Deer Hunter, Apocalypse now or Rambo as the ones that had left a great impact on the

public opinion about the war, Paris takes the stance of James Monaco, the distinguished film

historian and critic, and claims that „only two films both documentaries, had any real impact

on the thinking about the war: Selling the Pentagon (1971) and Hearts and Minds (1972),

both of which emphasized that the war was being prolonged for political reasons“ (Paris, „The

American Film industry and Vietnam“). The movies from the post-war period often deal with

similar subjects like psyches of the tormented veterans like the one Robert De Niro portrays in

the Taxi Driver from 1973, and difficulties with the readjustment from combat to civilian

lives, subjects that were already explored after the World Wars. But this period also becomes

marked by popularity of the theme of revenge for the crimes committed during the war,

specifically the Vietnam one. The movie which Paris mentions as the one dealing with this

subject is Good Guys Wear Black from 1977, or the ones with especially expressed anti-war

rhetoric like Gordon's war from 1973 and Rolling Thunder from 1977. Another point which

both Rowe and Paris take into consideration is that of the “Vietnam” term gaining a more

general and nonspecific qualities, transferring its overall meaning onto the home front. So

where Paris says that “Hollywood posed a simplistic relationship between the war and crime –

the brutality and slaughter of Vietnam and the senseless violence of street crime in home-front
 Tvrtković 4

America” (Paris), Rowe continues to explain: “never very precisely defined as culture,

geopolitical region, history, or people, “Vietnam” became a flexible term, so that the war

refought in cultural fantasy could take place at home” (Rowe 110), while also bringing

attention to movies like Alamo Bay from 1985, Southern Comfort from 1981, Heartbreak

Ridge from 1986, and the one both of them mention – Rambo, where the hero is reminded of

the imprisonment and torture by the communists when he fights the small-town sheriff who

acts as the representation of the American law. The aforementioned Taxi Driver also touches

upon the subject of a veteran who dedicates his existence to fighting the internal corruption of

certain sectors of his home country. Rambo, represents the changing attitude of America's

population towards the war. Paris, then, sees this as the “veteran film which helps focus

attention on the ambiguities of the American cinema's attitude to Vietnam. All these features

contain some vague condemnation of the war, but all extoll the abilities of the Special Forces;

elevating them to the status of “super soldiers” (Paris). These movies also hint at the

possibility of the sabotage by the very American society in the Vietnam War which ultimately

led to its loss. All of this leads to the creation of the so called “Vietnam-effect” as termed by

Rowe which could be briefly described as the application of the newly formed anti-war

opinions and policies during the 70's ad the 80's among the younger American population.

With that in mind, Rowe claims that „although traditional imperialism works by way of

expansion from a national center, U.S. Imperialism since Vietnam has worked steadily to

“import” the world and to render global differences aspects of the U.S nation – in short, to

internalize and ”hyper-nationalize” transnational issues. This “Vietnam-effect” has takes on

new features in U.S. neo-imperialism in the First and Second Gulf Wars and the ongoing war

in Afghanistan, but the historical legacy of the U.S. diplomacy and military strategy in

Southeast Asia from 1955 to 1975 is both coherent and fundamental” (Rowe, 98).
 Tvrtković 5

Ross states that “Film, the various authors argue, was a highly political medium in

which ideology and entertainment were not mutually exclusive.” The question then remains

have these political messages changed in the last several decades or has Hollywood continued

making anti-war sentiments for the sake of profit. He argues that “We need to understand how

cinematic images of workers are constructed in the first place. To that end, we must realize

that what happens off the screen is vital to shaping what is seen and not seen on the screen.

Doing all this requires adopting a materialist understanding of the film industry and its

changing relationship to workers as cinematic subjects, as audiences, as studio laborers, and

as movie producers.” (Ross, 82)

Therefore, Ross argues for look from inside of the Hollywood film making machine.

In his essay Capitalist Power, Distribution and the Order of Cinema, James McMahon quotes

Wasko and argues that “Contemporary filmmaking is organized in such a way that the major

firms of Hollywood have a dominant position in film distribution. This position enables the

biggest film distributors and the other business interests involved, like banks that offer

financing or firms that are looking for licensing and merchandising opportunities, to stand

between film production and the market (qtd. in McMahon 2014)”.

McMahon goes on to argue that Hollywood, like any enterprise revolves around risk

management and tends to minimize risk by adapting the films to the already existing audience

preferences. The film will have to adapt it's aesthetics, length, plot, action, etc., because of the

pervading taste which will determine the amount of money that the film will make, which will

in turn determine its success. The taste will vary according to different social and cultural

events taking place at the time such as the passage of time, tragic death of an actor or simply a

new distribution channel.

McMahon continues to quote Anon: “Of the five examples about what can adversely

change the future expectations of an individual film, four of them relate to the social relations
 Tvrtković 6

of cinema: • “Market conditions for the film that have changed significantly due to timing or

other economic conditions;” • “Screening, marketing, or other similar activities that suggest

the performance of the film will be significantly different from previous expectations;” • “A

significant change to the film’s release plan and strategy;” and, • “Other observable market

conditions, such as those associated with recent performance of similar films.”(qtd. in

McMahon 2014)”

The prominent word being market, all of this boils down to the fact that Hollywood

will first and foremost try to profit and will adapt the movies to match the interest of the

public. (I think it's fair to call Hollywood films – movies, at this point.)

The interesting thing to me is the adaptation of the „serious“ matter in question here; the war.

Looking at the pathos of the newer war movies I have seen such as Black Hawk Down (2001),

The American Sniper (2014), Jarhead (2005), Hurt Locker (2008), Lone Survivor (2013), I

can conclude with some certainty that the Hollywood will not bite the hand that feeds. The

portrayal of war as a narrative disrupting, dehumanizing experience is certainly there and

even more so than it was before, although the immediacy of experience, for a viewer with no

war experience at least, is largely based on identification with the protagonist.

Black Hawk Down's (which is non-surprisingly George W. Bush's favorite movie)

glorification of heroism and self-sacrifice for the sake of comrades, Jarhead's portrayal of

indoctrination and ruined youth, Hurt Locker's addiction of the thrill of the war, American

Sniper's post-traumatic stress disorder or Lone Survivor's American perseverance despite the

odds cultural myth, touch upon the ordained principles of the narrative of patriotism (which is

truth be told sometimes deconstructed, as the liberalism under which it functions will allow

for it), PTSD, addiction, etc. but will for the most part ignore the main cause of the war it is

depicting. I say for the most part because of Jarhead, in which at one point the protagonist,

portrayed by Jake Gyllenhaal who is famous for his willingness to engage in non-commercial
 Tvrtković 7

film-making, makes a compelling case against sacrificing for capital (oil fields of Kuwait in

this case).

However, the conditions previously mentioned, under which Hollywood operates will

not allow non-commercial movies to become commercial. They would do so, only if a drastic

change in society is to happen. This means that Hollywood as such, with it's portrayals cannot

be expected to deviate from the pervading culture nor in any sense of the word rebel against

the norms, if such rebellion is not profitable. Hollywood's deconstruction of capitalism or

neo-liberalism is to be expected only if such deconstruction is to take place through other art

outlets and/or media first, in which case one could expect it to adapt to make the profit

sustainable again.

We can therefore conclude two things. First, the distinction between film and movie is

a valuable one (value in this case is not expressed in funds, although the knowledge

commodification is in full effect) and second that any point, or argument which goes against

the grain of neo-liberalism will not be found in Hollywood. Neoliberalist ideology will be

deployed by Hollywood as their interest for their market share equals that of the state which

works to secure the area in which that market share can be sustained. Hollywood and U.S.

foreign and domestic politics are therefore in a symbiotic relationship (although the type,

Parasitism or Mutualism remains allusive still). I did not touch upon other examples, such as

the Red Scare, in which Hollywood played an important role in developing anti-socialist and

anti-communist propaganda and propagating the spread of Cold War tensions, but the war

movies of the 70's and 80's previously mentioned certainly illustrate Hollywood's indifference

or avoidance of portraying the other perspective. This I hope I proved continues still, albeit

more subtly, calling in it's favor the alienated ideology of subjectivism of viewers hungry for

a sneak peak of an experience of thrilling tragedy in which their voyeuristic tendency is called
 Tvrtković 8

upon and fondled in hopes of replacing any deeper message with an immersive experience of

being someone or somewhere else, at least for an hour and a half.

 Tvrtković 9

Works cited

McMahon, James (2014) : Capitalist Power, Distribution and the Order

of Cinema, Working Papers on Capital as Power, No. 2014/01, Forum on Capital As Power -

Toward a New Cosmology of Capitalism, s.l.

Paris, Michael „The American Film Industry & Vietnam“. History Today 37.4 (1987): n.pag.

History Today. 4. Apr. 1987. Web. 14. June 2018.

Rowe, John Carlos. „Culture, U.S. Imperialism, and Globalization“. The Cultural Politics of the

New American Studies. Ann Arbor: Open Humanities, 2012. N. Pag. Print

Ross, Steven J. “American Workers, American Movies: Historiography and Methodology |

International Labor and Working-Class History.” Cambridge Core, Cambridge University

Press, 9 Jan. 2002.