Dear Madam,
I read with great interest the piece ‘US military and Hollywood’ in last week’s publication (11.11.22). The late director of the original Top Gun, Tony Scott, as well as its epitomising star, Tom Cruise, have made no secret of the original movie (and subsequent sequel) as ‘love letters’ to US Naval Aviation. Although access rights to military bases, equipment, and personnel, is undoubtedly part of the ‘Military-Entertainment Complex’ that the article suggests, for every ‘pro’ military blockbuster that has appeared, there has equally been many films that have shown the reality of warfare and its effects.
The article suggests an easily suggestible American public, especially focussed on US youth culture. Perhaps a useful parallel would be Love Island? Many have levelled criticism at this show for the objectivisation of young people, body image, patriarchal attitudes, and misogyny. Scores of people, however, still watch the show justifying their viewing under the premise that they recognise the issues and can see through them to enjoy it as a piece of ‘entertainment’. In the first instance, do we not ascribe the same logic to viewers of Top Gun?
Entertainment aside, there is also perhaps more nuance to be found in sociological and psychological reasons why any individual joins the armed forces. Patriotism can so often be sneered at, or be put down, by those that might label themselves as progressive and or liberal. We must not make the mistake of thinking less of those who choose to serve their country and pigeonhole any of them as being indoctrinated by modern forms of propaganda. Anyone that has gone through any military basic training would easily tell you that any simple notion of ‘cool’ goes out the window with the physical and mental hardships of that process, let alone the rigours and consequences of future service.
Throughout history, in both the US and UK, the military has also played a socio-economic role. The military can be a great social leveller as well as a source of income and certainty for families that have little other recourse. There are no ‘anti-military’ US politicians or, if there are, they have no constituents. I agree with the author that empathy, for conflicts abroad, has certainly diminished and needs addressing but the military still plays a vital role in our, and US, society. Top Gun, or any varnished blockbuster, is not the cause of an increase in militarism, nor division in American politics. It is, perhaps, symptomatic of societies’ demands for easily digestible ‘heroes’ and ‘villains’, but has that not been the case since the ‘panem et circenses’ of the Ancient Greeks and Romans?
Yours,
Ben Turner
