This obviously shifts the tone of any war movie to the point where we could almost call it propaganda. How can movies be true to history if they're not allowed to ever show a major player in a bad light?
Apocalypse Now, Full Metal Jacket, Platoon ... There are probably more movies critical of war than promoting it. Actually, the general theme is to display the senseless of war than to glorify it. To say hollywood is in the pocket of the pentagon is to ignore most of its history.
China on the other hand, won't approve a movie if winnie the pooh appears in it.
It's not comparable to what Chinese do of course, but the intention is there. Anyone who directly compares Chinese censorship to US censorship is an idiot.
The story goes that the US Army refused to cooperate with Heartbreak Ridge once they read the script, but the USMC agreed without reading it. That’s why you’ve got the corrupt supply sergeant, the useless platoon commander, the cowardly company commander, the unit that is forced to repeat basic training and everything else that portrays everyone but Clint Eastwood’s character in a poor light.
And we didn't even get to censorship of any sexual content, where depictions of human bodies make sure that US will censor it.
It's really hard to be sympathetic to this US hand-wringing where we've had our own content censored constantly under conservative American value system on American platforms.
You can’t in China.
The act of NOT giving resources and bases to film makers is not censorship.
For all the indirect pressure, anti war movies do exist as do movies that challenge American systems and narratives of superiority - from within their own country.
Dissent is enshrined as a part of existence in america.
In China it is anathema, and they explicitly and implicitly act to maintain that strength.
Hence the whole point of the article - it’s not america which is asking Apple to take down apps because they hurt China’s image, and it’s not America telling the NBA to correct its errors.
When people kneeled in america during football games, or highlighted their protest, it was handled publicly and all sides were audible. political tribes fought over the act on the air waves- but that’s something that doesn’t happen in China at all; No one was whisked away to a re-education camp.
P.S. Just wait until you get the Chinese value system, which surprisingly censors everything US does and much much more.
- Full Metal Jacket: 1987
- Platoon: 1986
Anything more recent?
- Hurt Locker: showing the lack of clear morality (good guy/bad guy) in war
- American Sniper: showing the lasting psychological damage that war can inflict on the individual soldier.
Even though some of these movies depict individual heroism in war, none of them would be allowed in China (without heavy editing) because they are at their heart, critical of the entire endevour.
"Kyle meets Taya Studebaker at a bar, and the two soon marry. He is sent to Iraq after the September 11 attacks. His first kills are a woman and boy who attacked U.S. Marines with a Russian made RKG-3 anti-tank grenade. Kyle is visibly upset by the experience but later earns the nickname "Legend" for his many kills. Assigned to hunt for the al-Qaeda leader, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, Kyle interrogates a family whose father offers to lead the SEALs to "The Butcher", al-Zarqawi's second-in-command. The plan goes awry when The Butcher captures the father and his son, killing them while Kyle is pinned down by a sniper. This sniper goes by the name Mustafa and is an Olympic Games medalist from Syria. Meanwhile, the insurgents issue a bounty on Kyle."
How this disproves that "Hollwood is unable to record a movie depicting modern US millitary in any critical or non-heroic manner"?
If you have mentioned Generation Kill I would have given you props but it is not an accident that many people in US have not heard about that series (and the book).
It's very critical. While American Sniper does indeed glorify the heroism of individual soldiers, it simultaneously criticizes the entire endevour. Yes, the lead protagonist is depicted as a hero, but he is never confident in his own morality, and even develops a professional kinship with the people that he is ordered to kill. It also highlights the severe physiological damage that war can bring, the movie ending in tragedy.
While American Sniper may glorify the individual warrior, it's largely critical of war itself.
Which is a voluntary process. How does that compare to top down state censorship?
If an executive asks for changes to remove homophobic comments from a Western film, they are not engaging in "top-down state censorship". That's just a person helping other people not be jerks.
I seriously have no idea what you are talking about. If I had to guess, you are comparing removing hate-speech to adding CCP propaganda. Those are the same thing.
Can that possibly be right?
It's not. People get recruited to look the other way as Uyghur graveyards get disappeared, not to mention what is done to people. The main difference is that the Winter Soldier hearings didn't just take place, you can still watch them on American websites, or buy the movie from American sellers. Or take this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell_Tribunal
> The Russell Tribunal was included by historian Guenter Lewy as part of a "veritable industry publicizing alleged war crimes", as increasing numbers of American servicemen were stepping forward with published accounts of their experiences with atrocities, and scholars and peace organizations were holding tribunals dealing with war crimes.
That is not at all comparable with the situation in China. And even as bad as COINTELPRO was, notice the difference between https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO#Intended_effects and "disappear anyone deemed an enemy, disappear who talks about it, if the people protest, roll over them with tanks". We also don't only ever hear about the Kent State shooting from people living in exile, or see it in archives of non-US news organizations.
There is propaganda on both sides, but basically zero criticism or reflection (allowed within earshot of the government) on just one of them. That the crickets are chirping under the CCP while atrocities of the US military are heavily publicized and discussed, also by American filmmakers and journalists, in itself says a lot.
(It's kinda funny really - in the movie the hero returns to earth disgusted because she had to help with operations colonising neutral worlds. And then joins the Air Force.)
Maybe you would have repeated the same line if Disney was making cartoons for the Soviets or Nazis last century. And to that I say, bug off.
Since you don't seem to want to use HN as intended, I'm not sure what there is left to do but ban you. I can't help but feel like you don't really mean to be aggressive, though, and are somehow doing this for some other reason. So, one last plea: if you don't want to be banned on HN, please read https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and take the spirit of this site to heart. There's no reason why you can't make your substantive points in keeping with those guidelines. Yes, there are many bad comments that get posted here. That's no reason to be abusive and make this place even worse.
However - if you want to make a moral argument against another side in a conflict, you need to make sure that you're actually standing on a moral high ground. At least if you want to recruit allies on your side. And, if you read the news, current US administration hasn't been treating their allies too well these last years. And US will need allies to resist Chinese influence.
I don't hold any sympathy for the Chinese, but it's also hard to see how following just another bully in an unequal relationship would benefit my non-US government.
This isn’t the us army making the argument or the American state. Normal people are.
How is this different from saying “only people who have never sinned can speak out against evil.” With the added dollop of whataboutism?
You can't make a moral argument ("China is evil!") without being on moral highground. Having your own moral highground questioned when you're trying to paint youself as better is not "whataboutism".
There's two way how you can go about this argument:
1.) You can debate purely realpolitik - where morals don't matter and only the benefit of US or China hegemony is taken into account. This can be a hard sell though, mostly due to how current administration relentlessly attacks even their historic allies.
2.) You can debate on basis of keeping a free and modern society and how US keeps Chinese totalitarianism at bay. But then you will have to accept having your own morals questioned. Screaming about Chinese totalitarianism when the current US president actively avoids and attacks the US justice system trying to keep him accountable is hypocritical.
How is this in any way comparable to China where people have to come up with homophones/alternate words to literally get around armies of state censors?
Which makes me wonder: when I first read his post I found it quite interesting and, in fact, it confirmed my experience as a non-American that occasionally watches contemporary American action movies: they're sickeningly propagandistic and paint the military in a way that is, to say the least, unrealistic. It always bothers me, but I'm used to the idea that many people in America buy the idea that soldiers are their heroes, fighting for them and saving the country. It's an idea that in my European country is much less effective and widespread (even if recently the right is trying to make it a thing).
In any case, now I'm wondering what is true and what is not about his statement. I guess I'll have to research it, as I'm curious to know more about this. I have to say that this shows that the trick with propaganda is not to lie but to use some specific facts as a weapon.
Honestly, I wish I had made a throwaway for talking about "political" topics. This account was meant for my more professional stuff. For various reasons I gradually "came out" and rebuked a few hate and war mongering posts. And your comment sounds much like one I believe I made days ago about the rise in anti-China/Eastern smears getting attention on HN.
Please do respect my privacy, but I am an actual, verifiable person who has no affiliation with reputation management, psyops intelligence groups and so on in any country (neither private nor state groups btw).
What I've posted is true, and many others have expanded on it. Some of their supportive posts I'll try find time to research and confirm myself!
"Facts as a weapon", well that's flattering--"pen mightier than the sword" sort of vibe.
But having my history looked into, my identity found, employers contacted in efforts to have me fired, that is scaring me. That's a weapon governments use to squash dissent against their use of fascism, and I don't see it as good use of facts as a weapon.
My immediate thought is to delete all my posts, change my usernames everywhere and shut down professional accounts. But then the pushers of Chinese occupation, invasion, suctions, proxy-wars or general weakening of a state I admire (at least above others) get a gold star.
Anyway, I'm going to stop posting. Hopefully I can find another username I like when I want to post about product releases.
Even showing actual facts can get you in trouble.
I have definitely learned a lot from your posts and hope you do keep them up.
I checked and no it’s not
The person is very clearly pro-China. But “their entire account” looks like a normal hacker news user except for their political leanings
To the mods: potty mouths aren't the problem on HN, the spreading of fake news is.
I struggle to define this "anti-war anti-democrat anti-media (usually pro-Trump)" demographic I see online. Just a light scratch of the fingernail and their entire ideology falls apart.
Black Mirror, from memory, season 3 episode 5(?), a soldier fights a non-human enemy that is simply hiding from them. [Spoiler ahead] Turns out, military manipulation of the soldier's brain causes him to see non-humans where there are actually helpless humans.
Independence Day 2 lent their story, one of fighting alien invasion, to US armed forces recruitment videos. Actors gave mock interviews about their brave children who fought the aliens, and viewers were encouraged to join the REAL armed forces to be like the fictional ones fighting the fictional enemy.
This scratches the surface of what I mean to compare Cook's alleged requests to. Apple, without military money, asked writers to be sensitive of another nation. Their motive: a wider audience and more subscribers and customers. Heinous and selfish--sure, why not--but a far cry from recruiting folks to dump napalm on villages or use Iraqi farmers as target practice.
As a freaking media company, producers and other executives ask for content and define the market in which they want to address. It sounds like that's all Apple's really done. And if they've actually made an effort to curb US propaganda about China, then, even better. But I think it's more about expanding to a very promising market.