“˜Pearl Harbor’ uses history to disguise war propaganda
By Daily Bruin Staff
June 3, 2001 9:00 p.m.
 Mitra Ebadolahi Ebadolahi is a
third-year international development studies and history student
who believes that the forces of good will kiss evil on the lips.
She encourages comments at [email protected].
Click Here for more articles by Mitra Ebadolahi
I was seven when I saw “The Wizard of Oz” for the
first time. Besides being amazed and inspired by its music and
cinematography, I was awed at the moment when the
“wizard” was revealed to be none other than a regular
old man, obsessed with power and hoping to create a false realm
from a glamorous show. It was my introduction to the world of spin
doctors and other agents of propaganda.
Today, these wizards are omnipresent, and the mightiest one of
all tells his tales from behind a large white Hollywood sign
located not far from here. His most recent project? “Pearl
Harbor.”
Since the earliest days of cinema, film has served as a powerful
medium capable of evoking emotions and capturing our imaginations.
For precisely this reason, movies are excellent propaganda pieces,
and can represent the past, present or future in a manner that is
consistent with the views of dominant social or political
classes.
“Pearl Harbor” is just the latest in a long line of
military films designed to rally Americans to such noble tenets as
nationalism, patriotism, righteousness and military might. Yet in
light of Bush’s current plans to escalate military spending
and missile armament programs, the film’s glorification of
warfare, violence, racism and sexism is more ominous than
usual.
 Illustration by JASON CHEN/Daily Bruin Senior Staff Films
based on “history” are especially dangerous. In
“Pearl Harbor,” a specific historical account is
assumed to be “the truth” and confronts moviegoers as
such. This is Napoleonic history, the “lie agreed upon”
by the powers that be.
Every true story has a multitude of dimensions; life is
virtually never polar enough to be reduced to simply “us vs.
them” scenarios. Yet this is precisely what movies like
“Pearl Harbor” attempt to do.
Undoubtedly, the actual events that took place in Pearl Harbor
on Dec. 7, 1941, were tragic. But every single act of modern
warfare is the same: a dehumanizing, murderous moment in human
history. We must ask ourselves why movies like “Pearl
Harbor” are created. What purpose do they serve? How much can
they jeopardize the future of the human race by promoting and
perpetuating war and violence?
“Pearl Harbor” offers deep if subtle insights into
the psychology of warfare and the U.S. military. Early on in the
film, 25-year-old Rafe McCawley (played by Ben Affleck) explains
his desire to serve in the British air fleet against the Nazis to a
ranking officer: “I’m not anxious to die, sir.
I’m just anxious to matter.”
Today, thousands of young men and women join the military every
year hoping to matter. What does this mean? Do young people feel so
disenfranchised by our present society that they honestly believe
the only way to make a difference is to put on a uniform and pick
up a gun?
The film is also peppered with scenes of hyper-masculine
brutality that dehumanize violence by glorifying it. In one such
scene, Cuba Gooding Jr., who plays the part of a Navy cook named
Dorie Miller, stars in a boxing match on the USS Arizona against a
white marine. After the fight, Miller is asked why he fought and
what he earned for winning. His response is emphatic:
“Respect.”
Besides the tremendous levels of testosterone and chauvinism,
the boxing scene is characterized by a critical racial dynamic that
is completely glossed over in the movie. As a person of color in
the U.S. military, Miller is reduced to a mere entertainer who must
struggle to gain respect by fighting for show.
What has changed in the past 60 years? There are more people of
color in the military today than ever before; many, denied access
to higher education or decent employment, enlist hoping for a
brighter future. Others enlist out of blind patriotism to defend a
system that has marginalized their own communities. All will be
stripped of their humanity and turned into agents of the
military-industrial complex, trained to kill and taught that
“the enemy” never matters.
This obscure enemy plays a critical role in developing
nationalism and patriotism, classic ideologies rooted in an
“us vs. them” mentality. In order to kill other human
beings, we must first be convinced that they are somehow less than
human and prove our violence to be righteous. This is why modern
militaries worldwide spend huge sums on propaganda designed to
demonize “the enemy” and justify war.
While military generals brainwash young recruits, Hollywood
plays a complementary role in convincing moviegoers that
America’s enemy of the month must be stopped. Since every
major poll in recent memory indicates most Americans are averse to
war, the Pentagon and its right-hand Hollywood-man must work even
harder to promote the U.S. military and keep up democratic
appearances.
If taxpaying voters aren’t persuaded to support the
Pentagon’s outrageous budget or the military-industrial
corporations producing weapons and fighter planes, American
hegemony might be threatened by its own disgruntled citizens.
Pearl Harbor advocates the Pentagon’s interests
beautifully. As the Pacific fleet is being bombed, McCawley angrily
observes that America’s B17s are no match for Japan’s
faster Zero fighter planes. Later in the film, Colonel James
Doolittle (Alec Baldwin) must struggle to lighten clunky American
bombers in order to execute a revenge attack on Tokyo.
The hidden message? The United States needs to spend more on its
military to prevent inadequate technologies from hindering defense
and endangering American civilians.
The reality? U.S. military spending is projected to be $325
billion for fiscal year 2002, up $14.5 billion from FY 2001 and
more than any other country in the world. Meanwhile, the Department
of Education will receive a paltry raise of only $4.6 billion,
according to the Council for a Livable World.
Think America needs this budget to counter potential military
threats? Think again. China, one of the Pentagon’s favorite
bogeymen, has an annual military budget of “only” $17
billion (www.clw.org).
Yet Hollywood has saved the day, refuting fact with fiction.
The U.S. military feeds off blind obedience to patriarchal
hierarchies of power and authority. Similarly, our own blind
obedience to Hollywood turns glorified horror stories into box
office blockbusters and fuels the propaganda machine.
World War II is an undeniable part of our collective human
history, but war is not an inevitable part of our future. For peace
to prevail, we must evolve past blind nationalist or patriotic
sentiments and refuse to allow superficial Hollywood accounts to
serve as our history teachers.
Perhaps the only intelligent line in “Pearl Harbor”
is spoken by the character of Admiral Yamamoto Isoroku. When
praised by another high-ranking Japanese official for his brilliant
military strategizing, Yamamoto retorts, “a (truly) brilliant
man would find a way not to fight a war.”
I, for one, agree completely.
