The year is 1986. Top Gun has just hit the cinemas, and now, for the first time, we see Tom Cruise light up screens all around the world. Our hearts have been moved by Goose’s demise, stirred by Maverick’s romance with his Charlie, and we all whoop and cheer as Maverick and Iceman put aside their differences to focus on what’s important: flying. Ninety minutes of action-filled fun. So much ‘fun’ that young people, (mostly men) in their droves, touched specifically by the glamourous Top Gun lifestyle, flood to recruitment centres – in an increase never seen before. Rough estimates believe that there was a whopping five hundred percent increase in applications in for naval aviator positions between 1986 and 1987 alone.
And with this recruitment drive, in the form of the box office hit Top Gun, thus began a brand-new relationship, the US Department of Defence and Hollywood.
How does a government-run military start a relationship with the entertainment industry? As always, the answer is simple: money. Films are expensive. The Top Gun budget alone was fifteen million USD (that’s thirty-eight million in today’s money!), so Hollywood was forced to turn outwards to help. The subject matter of a naval military base was perfect – they could ask the US military, an organisation today that spends 734 billion dollars a year. But in return for the 1.8 million dollars of funding for the original movie, there were of course terms and conditions. Specifically, that Goose was not able to die in an aeroplane collision in the air; instead it was replaced with a faulty parachute jump from a plane. A subtle difference which shifted the responsibility of a beloved character’s death from the Navy to an unavoidable and unforeseen tragedy.
The messaging of Top Gun was nothing but positive for the US military: a movie of brotherly camaraderie, where war in clean, just, and the US is correct for the military action. There is tragedy, but the characters are ultimately fulfilled by their work allowing the end of the movie to be unparalleled success for the navy, filled with personal glory for Maverick – there is no mention of his actions in both films killing other soldiers, and particularly in the sequel, had the potential to start a world war. The movie was so influential it birthed a whole new societal problem, ‘Military-Entertainment Complex.’ The military and Hollywood were quick to follow up on its success, collaborating on six different films in the 1990s. The military funding was behind some of the most successful Hollywood project in the last two decades, including most of the James Bond series, Wonder Woman 1984, Jurassic Park, and Indiana Jones. And with more box office successes, the more the Department of Defence was able to take back in recruitment as well as money.
So, what’s the problem with military funding? Fundamentally, movies that glorify military actions and war profit off a false narrative whilst taking advantage of those who experience an emotional reaction on seeing the characters in the movie. And it’s purposeful. After Top Gun’s release, military recruitment tables were set up at movie theatres in the US, so young men after the high on watching the film, impulsively signed themselves up to the military. Movies in Hollywood that preach anti-militarism are not able to gain as much funding as those that do, stopping them from reaching block-buster hits, as the lower budget brings in fewer audiences. Not to mention, for every anti-militarist movie that is produced, two more higher budget militarist versions will be hot on its heels. Military based video games are sold by the thousand each year – military violence is encouraged and pressed upon impressionable young minds who buy them.
Today, the USA has military troops in one hundred and fifty different countries. Over seven thousand men and women died the in the Iraq war. From the militarism and patriotism showcased and celebrated in American films, it is only a short step before even more US funds are sent away from public spending and towards the military. Support of pro-military politicians increases, and the US becomes more and more isolationist. Empathy for those on the other side of the conflict decreases.
Top Gun is a fun movie, but it is at its core a piece of pro-military propaganda, and its legacy isn’t going away. After Top Gun: Maverick, already a further 8% have signed up for the Navy. In the official web page for the US defence staff it says they ‘want to tell the military story right,’ without damage to the government. The ministry of defence has a whole department dedicated to reading scripts that include depictions of the military, and often edit accordingly, but most of their edits often are not publicly revealed. Their involvement deliberately enforces the patriotic, militaristic mindset onto young people. The military is a government-run initiative, and letting it interfere with the supposedly private entertainment system goes against the core belief of the American people, that they should have free speech in being able to critique their government and all its flaws. Instead, they preach increasingly radical statements, that increases the division that now dominates American politics.
