Abstract:
Media depictions of military conflict are often deliberately fraught with government biases and disinformation. In the United States, Hollywood often works in collaboration with the Department of Defense. The result is entertainment that doubles as military propaganda. Additionally, evidence shows that the video game industry works closely with gun manufacturers. Activision-Blizzard’s Call of Duty franchise presents a strong case study of the close ties between the American military-industrial complex and entertainment, both in historical revisionist narratives and in coordination with the U.S. military during development. These factors are worth critical examination as the interests of the American people do not always align with those of the military and their political allies.
Introduction:
Hollywood’s ties to the American military have been well known since the entertainment industry’s inception in the early 20th century. During this time, many Hollywood studios produced American military propaganda in support of the war effort during World War II. Between 1942 and 1945, the United States Office of War Information (OWI) even set up an internal division called the Bureau of Motion Pictures, which reviewed 1,652 film scripts produced in the United States and removed content that included anti-war messages or portrayed the United States in a negative light. Following the end of the war, the OWI was dissolved on executive orders, and the Bureau of Motion Pictures along with it. However, the institution’s legacy continues to this day under a new name: the Department of Defense (DoD) Entertainment Media Unit, which operates within the Office of the Secretary of Defense at the Pentagon [1].
The DoD Entertainment Media Unit operates differently than its OWI forefather, relying on mutually agreed-upon contracts with Hollywood studios. That’s because producing a film that depicts any kind of military action necessitates military equipment like cars, tanks, military bases, uniforms, and much more. In most cases, such equipment is not available on the civilian market, and in order to portray authentic government logos, permission from the actual organization would be needed [2]. Some productions avoid trademark issues by slightly altering the governmental logos or by making up fake governmental organizations altogether. When it comes to sourcing real military vehicles, equipment, and weaponry, however, there’s simply nowhere else to turn except to the Department of Defense. In return, the DoD demands a nominal fee and the power to edit the film’s content to ensure that it portrays the United States military according to their guidelines [3].
These agreements are mutually beneficial: Hollywood gains access to taxpayer funding, military expertise, equipment, and locations, while the U.S. military ensures the continued production of propaganda [3]. The 1986 film Top Gun, starring Tom Cruise, was a landmark success for the DoD Entertainment Media Unit. The film would have been prohibitively expensive to create without the military’s involvement. The total budget for the film was $15 million, an incredibly small figure when you account for the fact that a single F-14 Tomcat, the military fighter jet that Tom Cruise’s character pilots in the film, costs around $38 million. After allowing the military to modify their script, the DoD gave the filmmakers 24 F-14s, four aircraft carriers, access to a Naval Air Base, and nearly 48 other aircraft, all for just $1.8 million. Following the release of Top Gun in 1986, applications to the United States Navy increased by 500 percent [4].
The exact guidelines that the DoD uses to determine whether or not to support a certain film’s production have not been made public, and neither have their criteria for requesting script changes. According to a recent Washington Post interview with Colonel Glen Roberts, chief of the Entertainment Media Unit of the DoD, there are four basic areas the branch keeps in mind when looking at a script: “security, accuracy, policy, and propriety” [4]. Security and propriety, meaning that a film shouldn’t give away any state secrets or endanger the lives of currently serving military personnel, are straightforward. The DoD’s rules around policy and accuracy are where things start to get muddy.
Altering History on the Big Screen
During the production of the World War II drama Windtalkers, the DoD took issue with many parts of the script. The film is centered around a white American soldier tasked with guarding Navajo Code Talkers, American soldiers whose language was used as a secret code for the Allies against the Japanese. Though many edits were made, one stands out. In the original screenplay, the protagonist is told by his commanding officer, “We can’t risk one of our code talkers falling into enemy hands. If there’s a chance that he might be captured, the code will be deemed more important than the man. If it comes to it, Enders, you’re going to have to take your guy out.” Captain Matt Morgan, head of the Marine Corps film liaison office, who worked on the film and claimed that such orders were “fiction,” demanded that the dialogue in the final version of the script be changed to make the order intentionally vague [5].
Contrary to Morgan’s claims, the existence of kill-if-captured orders has been historically verified by Navajo Code Talkers. In 2000, when the United States Congress passed a bill to honor the Navajo Code Talkers with medals, it explicitly recognized that “some Code Talkers were guarded by fellow Marines, whose role was to kill them in case of imminent capture by the enemy” [5]. This omission of the kill-if-captured order from the film is a direct attempt by the U.S. government to censure individuals’ real-life experiences of racial violence at the hands of the U.S. military.
Similar censorship was placed on the 2016 biographical war drama Whiskey Tango Foxtrot. The film explores the transformation of Kim Barker, a cable news reporter, as she ventures to Kabul, Afghanistan, in order to report on the war. Attempting to stay true to Barker’s story, the original script featured a real-life accident where a U.S. military truck had its brakes overheat and fail, causing the driver to lose control of the vehicle. Five Afghani civilians were killed in the crash, and the anti-American riots that followed injured over 100 others and claimed the lives of 11 more civilians.
While the scene was kept in the final cut, the Department of Defense insisted on making the vehicle involved a non-governmental organization vehicle, meaning it was not affiliated with the U.S. military. In doing so, they erased American accountability in a real-life incident that claimed the lives of over a dozen innocent people [6]. Numerous stories just like these exist throughout the history of the DoD’s collaboration with Hollywood [7]. The DoD’s script changes are nothing short of pure propaganda and serve only to preserve a shining image of the American military at the cost of historical integrity that involves the erasure of uncomfortable truths.
The Virtual Arms Trade
Video games also have an important role to play in the military entertainment complex as well as in the normalization of gun culture. Although games are not directly responsible for violence, they reflect a culture deeply invested in it. Guns have been around in video games since the medium’s inception. Their presence has only increased since the introduction of the first-person shooter (FPS), which has brought guns to the forefront of the screen.
Initially, FPS games featured entirely fictional guns. However, as the genre evolved, developers started incorporating real-world gun models into their games. This was evident during the development of the classic James Bond FPS, Goldeneye, where the team initially used real-life firearms as models for the game’s weapons. They soon discovered that using the names and likenesses of these guns without permission violated intellectual property (IP) laws. To address this, Goldeneye’s developers opted to create fictional weapons. Yet, for many games aiming for realism or a military theme, fabricating weapons wasn’t a suitable approach. Consequently, much like the relationship between Hollywood and the Department of Defense, the gaming industry began forming mutually beneficial agreements directly with firearm manufacturers [8].
These licenses come at a cost: either a one-time payment or a percentage of the game’s total sales. The exact cost of licensing is heavily dependent on how high-profile the game or its developers are. If the game developers and the manufacturers can’t come to an agreement, the gun may be scrapped from the game entirely or, more commonly, modified slightly from its real-world design and never referred to by its official name. Instead, game makers opt to use a fictional moniker or the gun’s military code, which have no protections under IP law.
In addition to being paid, the weapon manufacturers often request control over how their guns are used in the game and who gets to use them. Ralph Vaughn is a member of the Special Projects team at Barrett Firearms Manufacturing, the creators of the Barrett .50 caliber sniper rifle, which has seen virtual deployment in numerous military games over the years. In a 2019 interview, Vaughn told Eurogamer, “We want to know explicitly how the rifle is to be used, ensuring that we are shown in a positive light… such as the ‘good guys’ using the rifle.” In the eyes of the arms manufacturers, video games are prime advertising for their firearms, especially amongst young people [8].
Call of Duty: Simplifying Reality
Along with aiding in the advertising of guns, video games serve as an interactive means for military propaganda. This was seen in the 2022 game Call of Duty (COD): Modern Warfare 2. The game largely drew from President Trump’s 2020 drone strike that assassinated Qassem Soleimani, an Iranian military general. Soleimani was considered to be the second-most powerful figure in Iran. Critics around the world argued that the strike violated international law and was unjustifiable, as the U.S. was not at war with Iran.
In the game, the assassination of a character similar to Soleimani is simplified. In the opening level, “Strike,” players assume the role of Lieutenant Simon “Ghost” Riley. They navigate to a vantage point to observe a meeting that involves General Ghorbrani. Eventually, players launch a missile to eliminate Ghorbrani and the arms dealers. Interestingly, the general bears a striking resemblance to Soleimani with his white hair and beard. He also resembles Soleimani in position, as in the game, Ghorbrani is the leader of the Quds Force, a division of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. The main difference between Ghorbrani and his real-life counterpart is that, in the game, the general is depicted meeting with Russian arms dealers to acquire weapons against the United States – an event that never took place in real life. It’s an important difference because this fictional event provides the motivation to assassinate him in the game.
After the player successfully eliminates the general, the game quickly transitions to the next level without delving into the implications of the player’s actions. This approach is not new for the Call of Duty series, which has faced criticism for depicting real-world political figures and military operations without substantial context or critique. Specifically, Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 fails to provide players with a choice in carrying out the assassination, and it also fails to have them consider the geo-political consequences behind taking such actions. Thus, it insinuates that the assassination was necessary for the sake of national security, regardless of the complicated reality behind such events. It discourages critical thinking about the player’s role and the broader implications of military actions, promoting a simplified perspective on the assassination of Soleimani under the guise of fiction.
The previous installment of the COD franchise, Call of Duty: Modern Warfare (2019), is also guilty of this. In this version, the CIA teams up with a group of rebels battling against Russian attackers in the fictional nation of Urzikstan. The rebel group’s leader planned an ambush on the Russian army that leaves the Russians with only one means of escape: “The Highway of Death.” In the context of the game, the highway earned its name because it was bombed by the Russians during the invasion, killing hundreds of innocent civilians.
In reality, “The Highway of Death” is the name given to a stretch of road just outside of Kuwait City. During the Gulf War in the early 1990s, the U.S. caught a large Iraqi military convoy traveling along this road, made sure that none of the vehicles could escape, and then used military gunships to rain down fire all along the stretch of highway. Around 2,000 vehicles were destroyed, including a large number of civilian cars, bikes, and trucks visible in photographs taken after the attack. The exact number of casualties and how many of them were military, civilian, or even hostages is still unknown. The attack is considered to be a war crime by many.
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare’s association of the Highway of Death with Russian forces has drawn criticism for its insensitivity and historical revisionism. Gaming news outlet Polygon highlighted the controversy, noting the audacity it takes for American game developers to revise such a grave piece of history. The game’s narrative director, Tayler Kurosaki, gave a questionable defense, stating, “I think you could probably find many instances of the words ‘highway of death’ being used in a lot of cases [9].” Reattributing the misdeeds of the U.S. military to a rival nation is grossly negligent storytelling. By changing the surrounding context of the Highway of Death, Call of Duty erases the true narrative behind a serious war crime from the collective consciousness.
The Political Nature of War Games
It may come as a surprise that the developers in charge of creating Call of Duty narratives have often claimed that their games are apolitical. This, however, is an illusive statement as the United States military has a very strong interest in the gaming franchise. While the Call of Duty franchise doesn’t get direct funding or creative input from the U.S. military in the way that Hollywood does, its developers work closely with military consultants and regularly travel to military bases to get the latest information on technology.
Such is the case with former game developer Chance Glasco and game designer/producer Dave Anthony, who have both been hired as employees of the Atlantic Council, a think tank supported by the U.S. government. Anthony was personally hired by a former Pentagon official who was impressed with his work on the games; he cites consulting with Lieutenant Colonel Oliver North on Call of Duty: Black Ops 2 as a highlight of the game’s development, “There are so many small details we could never have known about if it wasn’t for his involvement [10].” North even appears as a character in the game, having lent both his voice and his likeness to the developers. Prior to this involvement in the games industry, North was best known as the man largely responsible for the Iran-Contra Affair in the 1980s, which diverted proceeds from Iranian arms sales in order to fund the Contras [11]. He would later serve as president of the NRA from 2018 to 2019 [12].
The intricate connections between Call of Duty’s top executives and the U.S. government highlight a “revolving door” phenomenon, where individuals move between high-level government positions and influential roles within the entertainment industry. Frances Townsend, a former senior advisor on terrorism and national security to the White House, and Brian Bulatao, a former chief operating officer at the CIA, both hold or have held senior positions within Activision Blizzard, the company behind COD. This crossover raises questions about the potential for governmental interests to seep into the narrative decisions of one of the gaming industry’s leading franchises.
Conclusion
The blending of military interests and entertainment media reflects the U.S. government’s ability to influence public narrative and perception. Films like Top Gun and games like Call of Duty are undoubtedly entertaining, but they also act as vehicles for military recruitment and the promotion of America’s military-industrial complex. The rewriting of historical events and the incorporation of military-approved messages create a narrative that can shape the collective consciousness, influencing views on patriotism, war, and the role of the U.S. on a global scale.
The presence of military and government ties within the highest ranks of entertainment companies, like Activision-Blizzard, suggests a deliberate effort to steer narrative decisions in a way that aligns with national interests. This can lead to storytelling that mirrors governmental agendas, potentially obscuring historical truths and shaping public opinion in ways that serve those in power. Media consumers and creators play an essential role in curbing the potential impact of these actions. Understanding the origins and motivations behind the stories we’re told is crucial in nurturing an informed citizenry and discerning public discourse. Opposition to the bloodshed brought about by the American war machine is common. By promoting media literacy and highlighting nefarious actors and their agendas, a stronger opposition can be mounted.
By Alexander Tomkow, School of Cinematic Arts, University of Southern California
About the Author:
At the time of writing this paper, Alexander Tomkow was an undergraduate student at the University of Southern California pursuing a Bachelor’s Degree in Interactive Entertainment and Game Design. He currently works as a game designer in the video game industry.
References
[1] B. Weikle, M. O’Connell, and J. Dalrymple, “How Hollywood became the unofficial propaganda arm of the U.S. military | CBC Radio,” CBC News, 30-Nov-2022. [Online]. Available: https://www.cbc.ca/radio/ideas/how-hollywood-became-the-unofficial-propaganda-arm-of-the-u-s-military-1.5560575.
[2] “U.S. government works,” USAGov. [Online]. Available: https://www.usa.gov/copyrighted-government-works
[3]R. Keegan, “The U.S. military’s Hollywood Connection,” Los Angeles Times, 21-Aug-2011. [Online]. Available: https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2011-aug-21-la-ca-military-movies-20110821-story.html
[4] T. Zenou, “’Top Gun,’ brought to you by the U.S. military,” The Washington Post, 27-May-2022. [Online]. Available: https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2022/05/27/top-gun-maverick-us-military/
[5] D. Robb, “To the shores of Hollywood,” The Washington Post, 15-Jun-2002. [Online]. Available: https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/lifestyle/2002/06/15/to-the-shores-of-hollywood/3adb86e3-13b9-4ca2-82ea-f05864aec874/
[6] T. Secker, “The Pentagon rewrites history through movies – in total violation of its directives on Hollywood,” Spy Culture | The State and Popular Culture, https://www.spyculture.com/the-pentagon-rewrites-history-through-movies-in-total-violation-of-its-directives-on-hollywood/
[7] T. Secker and M. Alford, “Why are the Pentagon and the CIA in Hollywood?,” American Journal of Economics and Sociology, vol. 76, no. 2, pp. 381–404, 2017.
[8] S. Parkin, “Shooters: How video games fund arms manufacturers,” Eurogamer.net, 14-May-2019. [Online]. Available: https://www.eurogamer.net/shooters-how-video-games-fund-arms-manufacturers
[9]T. Hussain, M. Higham, and J. Dekker, “Call of duty dev addresses highway of death, waterboarding, and the intent of its story,” GameSpot, 31-Oct-2019. [Online]. Available: https://www.gamespot.com/articles/call-of-duty-dev-addresses-highway-of-death-waterb/1100-6471037/
[10]T. G. Simon Parkin, “The military-entertainment complex: Call of duty makers have close ties with the Pentagon,” Raw Story, 16-Dec-2020. [Online]. Available: https://www.rawstory.com/2014/10/the-military-entertainment-complex-call-of-duty-makers-have-close-ties-with-the-pentagon/
[11]A. Macleod, “Call of duty is a government psyop: These documents prove it,” MintPress News, 09-Dec-2022. [Online]. Available: https://www.mintpressnews.com/call-of-duty-is-a-government-psyop-these-documents-prove-it/282781/
[12] M. Brice-Saddler, “NRA ousts president Oliver North after alleged extortion scheme against chief executive,” The Washington Post, https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/04/27/nra-chief-wayne-lapierre-claims-hes-being-extorted-by-oliver-north-hes-standing-his-ground/
Links for Further Reading:
Let’s Talk About Guns and Video Games
A thought provoking and powerful piece asking you to think more deeply about gun violence in video games.
Inside The Military-Entertainment Complex
A deeper examination of how Top Gun: Maverick helped the military-entertainment complex thrive.