Note: Where available, the PDF/Word icon below is provided to view the complete and fully formatted document
Disclaimer: The Parliamentary Library does not warrant the accuracy of closed captions. These are derived automatically from the broadcaster's signal.
As It Happened -

View in ParlView

(generated from captions) CROWD NOISE ABRUPT SILENCE Ten hut! Now, I want you to remember that no bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it dumb bastard die for his country. by making the other poor about America not wanting to fight, Men, all this stuff you've heard is a lot of horse dung. wanting to stay out of the war, love to fight. Americans traditionally love the sting of battle. All real Americans When you were kids, the champion marble shooter, you all admired the Big League ball players, the fastest runner, the toughest boxers. and will not tolerate a loser. Americans love a winner Americans play to win all the time. for a man who lost and laughed. I wouldn't give a hoot in hell lost, and will never lose a war. That's why Americans have never is hateful to Americans. Because the very thought of losing

Americans like war movies have heroes and villains. because war movies and they love villains Americans love heroes

and war movies have both. there's violence, there's action, There's conflict, there's drama, that's the key. and the good guy always wins -

trade papers for 20 years. I was a reporter at the Hollywood and investigative reporter I was the labour, legal in organised crime, and I was interested the blacklist, a lot of things. discrimination against minorities, I was interested in But this was always something because I'd always heard that... have to give their scripts, filmmakers who want military help if there's any paperwork on this. and I thought, gee, I wonder I started looking into it and found of pages of documents - there are tens of thousands between the producers, the correspondence written by the military. internal memos and this is a book and a story I love documents, with the documents, that can only be told with the documents so I just became obsessed are really startling. and the documents a very popular TV show in America This is a TV show from the 1950s, about a boy and his dog. called 'Lassie', BOY: Lassie! that had to do with the military, And they did several shows of suggested changes in the stories. and the military had all kinds "Timmy Versus the Martians". There was an episode called Martians, and there's a plane crash. The little boy thinks he's contacted the army came and did a test In the original story, of the crashed airplane and picked up the pieces to test. and took it to the wind tunnel Lassie howled They determined the reason vibration in the wing. was because she heard a high-pitched

in the airplane's design. There was a malfunction

because of Lassie howling, Lassie had saved the day - and could stop it happening again. they had found the problem for assistance, all they wanted When they asked the military

of a Cessna airplane, was some standard footage reconnaissance military aircraft. unless you change the script They said "No, we won't help you was not faulty. "to make it so that the airplane with the aircraft." "There's no problem These are their notes right here. to the producers of 'Lassie' - These are military notes 'Timmy Versus the Martians'. "We've also reviewed and interpose no objections "We have reviewed the script of the airplane crash." you change the circumstances "except that we strongly recommend makes faulty equipment, to get the idea that the military They don't want children targets of their recruiting efforts. because children are the main like the army, like the military, Because they make children like everything about the military, they'll want to join the military. so when they grow up are full of statements Over and over the documents to be future recruits. where they're targeting children who see these films And the children and the people for the military. don't know this is an advertisement BUGLE AND DRUM ROLL allow themselves The military generally to be involved with Hollywood because they're already spending every year tens of millions of dollars to try and get recruits. on making promotional commercials

just want to, you know, On the other hand, we in Hollywood make a bigger and better movie, more bang for their buck. giving the audience what we want out of it. It's not hard to see around the world The vast majority of people have never lived through war. its horrors, While some have witnessed in combat. few have actually participated come from watching movies, Most of our ideas about war above all, American movies. filming visions of war Hollywood has never stopped scales and fronts. in all its possible forms, Past wars, and future wars. present wars of a handful of films These are some approval process. that went through the Pentagon full cooperation. This is 'Behind Enemy Lines' - 'GI Jane' - no cooperation. which showed soldiers killing... 'Full Metal Jacket', marines killing other marines - 'Thirteen Days' - no cooperation. full cooperation. 'Top Gun', great film for the Navy - the military hated that movie. 'Platoon' - no cooperation, stealing gold from the Iraqis - 'Three Kings', showing soldiers no cooperation. this picture - full cooperation. 'Patton'. Of course they loved again, full cooperation. 'Pearl Harbor' - How long is America going to pretend ACTOR AS ROOSEVELT: the world is not at war? From Berlin, Rome and Tokyo, of weaklings and playboys we have been described as a nation or Russian or Chinese soldiers who hire British to do our fighting for us. I'm going to the war. 1941. A date which will live in infamy. romantic view of the events 'Pearl Harbor' was a really boring, and the day of, the attack. leading up to, recruiting poster for the military. It was a typical Jerry Bruckheimer We are at war. Perhaps the worst thing about the collaboration between Hollywood and the military is not the censorship that goes into the films, but the self-censorship. When you know you're going to need the military's assistance and you know they'll be looking at your script, you write it to make them happy from the beginning. I mean, it is so terrible that you don't really have to know much history to recognise it's absurd. Some people who don't know anything will think it's history and this is part of the problem, because if it was called 'Tennessee' which was the working title, then it's fictional, it's a love story. And Michael Bay said he was making a love story with Pearl Harbor in the background because he loved blowing up ships. But if you call it 'Pearl Harbor', then there is a presumption that this is about Pearl Harbor. In the late 1920s, the American War Department created an office to act as a bridge between the motion picture industry and the armed forces. We understood that 'Pearl Harbor' was going to be an action picture with an element of romance. It was not going to be an attempt to replicate history as a docudrama. So we understood that. We did not enter into our relationship on 'Pearl Harbor' with any illusions that this was going to be a kind of 'Man for All Seasons'. It wasn't advertised that way, the filmmakers didn't pretend it would be that way. So we knew that to some extent history was going to be the sacrificial victim in the service of drama and action.

But what we did believe, and I think that was borne out considerably, was that the film would awaken or reawaken interest in the period and in the survivors who were dying off by the hundreds of thousands. We were quite gratified in fact that up to the release of the movie and long after the release of the movie, an enormous amount of attention... more attention paid on Pearl Harbor, the survivors, the combatants, than during the 50th anniversary of the attack on Pearl Harbor by a substantial margin. From the earliest days of motion pictures, the American armed forces understood the importance of encouraging the production of films about war and combat. In helping to make 'Wings', the first major cooperation between Hollywood and the Pentagon, the military went well beyond its role of technical adviser and became directly involved in the logistics of the production. Between the First and Second World Wars, American war movies celebrated the bravery of its soldiers and gave the armed forces an aura of invincibility. BAND STARTS UP (Sings) * Buy, buy, buy, buy a bond... * Beginning in 1941, Hollywood joined the war effort. By 1943, over 26,000 members of the film industry were serving under the American flag. Never before had Hollywood and the military been so close. Stars travelled to distant fronts to raise troop morale. All sectors of the industry, from artists to technicians, were called to lend a hand. The army enlisted several Hollywood veterans to film the war. John Ford followed the events in the Pacific, William Wyler and John Sturges the aerial battles in Europe and George Stevens the D-Day landing. Among these films of undeniable courage and generosity, one in particular stands out as an unforgettable statement about the reality of war. And yet for over 30 years it was banned in America. FILM NARRATOR: The guns are quiet now. The papers of peace have been signed. The oceans of the earth are filled with ships coming home. In faraway places, men dreamed of this moment. But for some men the moment is very different from the dream. Here is human salvage, the final result of all that metal and fire can do to violate mortal flesh.

Some wear the badges of their pain - the crutches, the bandages, the splints. Others show no outward signs. Yet they too are wounded. SUBDUED MUSIC The psychiatrists listen to the stories of the men, who tell them as best they can. The names and places are different. The circumstances are different. But through all the stories runs one thread - death and fear of death. LOUD PLANE ENGINE Throughout the 60s, Hollywood continued to celebrate the military feats and traditional heroism of American soldiers during World War II, the perfect example of a just war. 'The Longest Day' is one of the most important films from this period. It represents a high point in the relationship between Hollywood and the Pentagon. Never again would they achieve the same level of mutual cooperation. But these images shot by George Stevens at the liberation of the Nazi concentration camps remain a shocking counterpoint to Hollywood's heroic visions of war. SORROWFUL MUSIC There's one thing that you men will be able to say when you get back home, and you may thank God for it. 30 years from now when you're sitting around your fireside with your grandson on your knee and he asks you "What did you do in the Great World War II?" You won't have to say "Well... I shovelled shit in Louisiana." All right. Now you sons of bitches, you know how I feel. I will be proud to lead you wonderful guys into battle any time, anywhere. That's all. Americans on one level deny that they like war and therefore violence, that they're peace-loving people. But the US was created out of violence in the American Revolution, it was preserved in the Civil War. Its expansion came through violence and then in WW1 and WW2, it made the world safe for democracy using violence for good means. And my argument is that Vietnam became so traumatic not only because we lost but it was revealed that we really loved violence. That's one reason we got into the war. "We can win, we've always won. "A little bit of violence and we've won." It didn't work. So it was more traumatic than just that we lost. Why must young Americans born into a land exultant with hope toil and suffer and sometimes die in such a remote and distant place? The answer, like the war itself, is not an easy one. But it echoes clearly from the painful lessons of half a century. Three times in my lifetime,

in two world wars and in Korea, Americans have gone to far lands to fight for freedom. We have learned at a terrible and a brutal cost that retreat does not bring safety, and weakness does not bring peace. And it is this lesson that has brought us to Vietnam. I think Americans thought Vietnam would be like WW2. I'm not sure the movies made that great a contribution. I think that that may be an exaggeration. I believe that with Vietnam, what happened is that our leaders lied to us. And when you have leaders who lie to you - and they lied to themselves about Vietnam - the public will go along with it because there's a natural trust of the leadership until the leadership proves untrustworthy. Eventually Lyndon Johnson lost the trust of the country. There is an indication that that may happen to George Bush. You cannot go to war lying about why you are going to war. (Crowd chants) Hell no, we won't go! Peace now! Peace now... In this country there's still a view that the Vietnam War could have been won. The people currently in power in Washington, the President of the United States, his Cabinet, Cheney, all these people believe that war could have been won. They believe it was okay to lie about the people to get that war to be won. That attitude...

that view, is what's being sold in Hollywood and elsewhere now to get movies that are favourable to the United States, that sell the idea that it's okay for young men and women to go die in war, that's acceptable. To be a superpower there's a basic belief that you must glorify war to get the public to accept the fact you're sending their sons and daughters to die. That's a very cynical way to run a government. In the end it will bite you. If there's no serious effort to explain why you're going to war or you lie, it catches up with you. As America sinks into the quagmire of Vietnam, the movie industry begins to lose interest in representing war on screen. After such films as 'Patton', 'MASH', 'Catch-22' and 'Tora, Tora, Tora', Hollywood brings the production of war films to a halt. America's defeat in Vietnam leaves the country traumatised and unwilling to address the subject of war for some time. With one exception - 'The Green Berets'. COL BARUCH: 'The Green Berets' was a project John Wayne had wanted to make, and he sent letters which I have to Lyndon Johnson asking him to help get the military to assist, which Johnson did. They rolled out the red carpet. They gave everything to the filmmakers for free. But after that the problem was that filmmakers did not come into the Pentagon requesting help until the war was over. Because again, Hollywood is interested in making money. The war had become controversial. They didn't know when it would end. They didn't want films that showed a war that was over. So the issue wasn't how Vietnam changed the relationship during the war, it was what happened afterwards and what happens afterwards is that the media has savaged the military, particularly the army and marines for their atrocities, etc. And so when the scripts come in, the scripts that do come in reflect the filmmakers' perceptions of the war, military argues that they are not in any way correct and therefore there's no way we're going to cooperate.

INTRO TO SMOKEY ROBINSON'S 'THE TRACKS OF MY TEARS' * People say I'm the life of the party * 'cause I tell a joke or two * Although I might be laughin' loud and hearty * Deep inside I'm blue * So take a good look at my face * You see my smile looks out of place * If you look closer it's easy to trace * The tracks of my tears. * VOICEOVER: The first real casualty of war is innocence.

The first real movie about the war in Vietnam is 'Platoon'. 'Platoon' became a sociological phenomenon. Now, whether it was just that the nation was ready for a healing between its Vietnam veterans and the society that essentially denigrated them, that essentially neglected them when we came home, or whether it was just such a terrific film that it brought people out of their reserve, it melted the ice. I'm not sure and that's not important. What is important was that what we brought to the screen in 'Platoon' served to essentially thaw the freeze that was on between America's Vietnam veterans, their families who knew nothing about the experience of Vietnam and even those who were against the war in America. The film that stands as the most extraordinary testimony of the military experience in Vietnam, as well as one of the greatest war films, is undoubtedly the work of Francis Ford Coppola. Inspired by Joseph Conrad's 'Heart of Darkness', 'Apocalypse Now' tells the story of the voyage of an American officer up the Mekong on a mission to execute a colonel who has spiralled out of control. I ain't risking no more lives. I'm in command, goddamn it, you'll do what I say. During his voyage, Captain Willard witnesses the destruction of Vietnamese society

while the American army sinks collectively into madness, absurdity and horror. (Howls) 'Apocalypse Now' transforms the Vietnam War into America's collective experience of evil in the name of the great fight against Communism. Watch it over here, Chief! Here's a film that works on so many different levels... as - for the time - complete reassessment of America's involvement in Vietnam and the raison d'etre and the ways in which that war was fought. It's an allegory. It's a... it's very much a personal film. It's a film that... is realistic in its presentation of the futility of war. It's a film in which we find ourselves being lost in the story, yet constantly reminded of things we should always be reminded of, and that is that, you know, war is hell, it's madness, we're better to avoid it under any circumstances. It's the ultimate war movie. If you're going to categorise pictures that we didn't work on, I would create two categories. Category 1 is the picture that has the fundamental show-stopping premise. 'Apocalypse Now' - an officer is sent out to assassinate another officer. 'Crimson Tide' - an armed mutiny aboard a nuclear submarine. Once you have a fundamental show-stopper,

there's really little point in pointing out that the ribbons are wrong or the haircuts are not quite right. Any film that's a good film will show that war is not the answer. Any film that the military assists always says that war IS the answer. And every film that the military assists is worse than any film that they don't assist. If you had a list of the films the military refused to assist and compared those to the films they did assist, it's like night and day. Films are so much better when the military isn't involved, because you don't have this censor telling you what to write. You have artists presenting their image, not the military's image. After Vietnam, America enters a new era of peace. The Pentagon invests in technological research, convinced that border safety and its capacity to intervene depend on technological superiority. Ten years after their divorce, Hollywood starts to offer the Pentagon stories about the technological image it's looking to promote. The film that brings them together once again is fittingly an enormous commercial success. I'm gonna send you against the best. Yessir! You two characters are going to Top Gun. I feel the need... BOTH: The need for speed. For five weeks you'll fly against the world's best fighter pilots. You really are cowboys. It's my belief that 'Top Gun' was a milestone picture because it signified the rehabilitation of the military as acceptable subject matter in a positive context. It showed to me and to a great many other people you could make a film that portrayed the military, the US military, in a positive way and make money and not become a pariah in Hollywood. I'm not saying it was the first picture to do that but I'm saying it was the most important picture to... that symbolised that change in public opinion. MAN TALKS OVER RADIO After ten years of self-doubt, America can make a fresh start and begin to imagine a future that may involve military interventions beyond its borders. In the Gulf War three years later, the American public,

with images of 'Top Gun' in mind, has no reason to doubt its victory. It was a highly sophisticated, highly technological war. Having learned its lesson from Vietnam, the American army took every precaution to control images reaching the public. No more bodies would be seen. No more direct human suffering. As in a video game, the images of contemporary warfare became... clean. Is it possible for the movies to present a balanced representation of war if America dominates its adversaries in every way? Such a demonstration of superior strength makes dramatic tension hard to sustain. Perhaps that explains why Hollywood made so few films about the Gulf War. In the 90s, a new cycle of films imagines all the ways the enemy might sneak through gaps in technology to take advantage of the weaknesses of the American defence system. These films anticipate a new era in which war becomes assymetrical. About ten years ago, it just seemed so obvious that the next big conflict was going to be a conflict between non-aligned soldiers and the enemy of so many people in their minds - America. So it's no accident that terrorism... was already the front page headlines in the movies long before it became front page headlines in 'The New York Times'. Agent Hubbard, FBI. What I propose is that you let these people go and I'll take their place. I'll take your silence to mean you're considering my offer. Oh, God! London, Belfast, Beirut. We're not the first city to deal with terrorism. This is New York City. We can take it. It's interesting in that if you imagine a melodrama one needs an antagonist, and that antagonist has taken many faces over time. It didn't take a huge act of imagination to be aware of what was happening in Europe, you know, with that kind of radical fundamentalism, and to see that there were so many places that were already dealing with the issues I was addressing. I wasn't making it up out of whole cloth and it was easy to point to that. But the sensitivities of the Arab-American community were something that was new and something that the film had to reckon with. With the invocation of the War Powers Act by the president, I'm declaring a state of martial law. We intend to seal off this borough and we intend to squeeze it. Do you have any idea what you're starting here? It's wrong!

What if they want us to herd children into stadiums? And put soldiers on the street and have Americans looking over their shoulders? Bend the law, shred the Constitution just a little bit. If we do that, then everything that we have bled and fought and died for is over. Don't you ever again question my command, is that clear? I'm not under your command, General. Take a look around. Tell me if you really think that's true. I've aspired to try to talk about violence and its consequences, to talk about the fact that history is made of people, that there are winners and losers and a price to be paid and that nothing happens absent its resonance and its consequences. Those films that I have objected to personally and politically are those that... seem to objectify its participants and exploit the violence and exploit war to suggest that it exists without political context and without human consequences. Not surprisingly, the Pentagon refused to cooperate on Edward Zwick's film 'The Siege'. Any aspect of the script that deals with military ethics, the behaviour of soldiers and officers in times of peace and war, is the object of particular scrutiny by the liaison officers who look at the scripts proposed by the studios. There are many subjects and themes that draw their attention. And the different possible reasons for denying cooperation constantly evolve. Often the special assistant to the Secretary of Defense for entertainment media will receive a script concurrently with my office. I'll do a peripheral read where I just kind of get the main points and see where does it have the army, that's the first thing I look for, the first specific army or military mention. And I sort of make notes - okay, we're here. The second time I'll go through and read it with a bit more critical eye. How would that soldier really behave in that situation? What sort of language is this soldier using? How is the soldier viewed by the civilians in the picture? What is the mood of the piece? And I go by step by step until I can get through it, and it will be a script similar to this one that's full of notes. First of all when we look at scripts, are we... conducting damage control? The answer is, absolutely. It's not my role here to vilify the armed forces, because I'm a believer of the armed forces. Else I wouldn't be in this job. My colleagues feel the same way. Those in the military obviously are adherents. Otherwise they'd vote with their feet and quit. So we're all of the opinion that the military is an institution for the betterment of the United States. Any picture that's contrary to that fundamental premise will be a problem for us. I just wonder how many of the 600 Americans that have been killed in Iraq joined the military 'cause they saw some movie as a kid.

"I wanna join the military. I saw this movie, it looks great." How many of the dead 600 Americans joined the military because of some movie they saw, not knowing the military were behind the scenes manipulating the content of the script to make the military look better than it was? Once they got to Iraq it was too late.

It wasn't all so glamorous over there. When you use the military for propaganda and the American public sees it all the time, and what's not real is lost. And because our movies are shipped around the world and everybody sees them around the world, that sensitivity may be going elsewhere. What happens when that takes place is, when a life is taken you care a little less. When you lose somebody... "Oh, that's war." We get that sort of very tough attitude. I'm afraid that's what the movies are doing. This is the 'Windtalkers' script, the original script. This is page 51, there's the character of the dentist and the description says "Bent over a dead Japanese soldier,

"doing what he does, relieving the dead of the gold in their mouth." Then the dialogue for the dentist says "Come to Poppa..." "The dentist twists his bayonet, "struggles to get the gold from the corpse's teeth. "Sees Hjelmstead and the rest of the 2nd Assault coming." This was a big problem for the Pentagon. They didn't want this in the movie. This is an internal memo from the Marine Corps Film Office, Captain Matt Morgan to Phil Strub saying "Page 51, the dentist digs gold from the jaws of corpses. "This has to go. The activity is un-marine." Phil Strub, his boss at the Pentagon, wrote back ".. stealing gold teeth, yep, has to go!" "The dentist character displays distinctly un-marine behaviour. "He is in fact committing an atrocity." They don't want that in a film they're cooperating with. So the producers agreed to take it out. The character of the dentist was eliminated from the film. As we see from the film, the real, actual footage, marines really did this during WW2. There is actual footage of a marine with a pair of pliers pulling the gold teeth out of a dead Japanese soldier's mouth. This is the real face of war, not the idealised, heroic version that the Pentagon wants to project. My objection is not to filmmakers altering history. Filmmakers' art is manipulable and filmmakers can say whatever they want. They can say something that's absolutely false. But when the military starts dictating the content of art and saying what history is and their idea of history. We know that's completely false.

One great example is what they tried to do with 'Thirteen Days'. The filmmakers were trying to stick very close to real history. They had the actual... Kennedy... Before Nixon was taping in the White House, Kennedy was taping there. We can actually hear, at the John F Kennedy Library website, you can listen to actual tape recordings that Kennedy was having during the Cuban Missile Crisis. That was not good enough for the military. They didn't want a real picture of what the military advised, which would've taken us down the path of WW3. They wanted a much more sanitised version and they would not assist Kevin Costner and Peter Almond and the producers of 'Thirteen Days'. It showed too much real history, the facts of what happened.

If launched, those missiles from Cuba would kill a lot of Americans. The presence of those missiles gives the Soviets first strike capability. Those missiles make a nuclear exchange more likely. That is why I'm being a pain in the ass about destroying them and destroying them immediately. Hell, even Mack agrees. And sir, given your own statements about Cuba,

I think a blockade or a bunch of political talk would be considered by our friends and neutrals as a pretty weak response. I suspect that many of our citizens might feel the same way. You're in a pretty bad fix, Mr President. What did you say? You're in a pretty bad fix. Maybe you haven't noticed you're in it with me. General, what are the Soviets gonna do when we attack? Nothing. Nothing? Nothing, because the only alternative open to them... is one they can't choose. You know, they're... they're not just missiles we're gonna be destroying, General. If we kill Soviet soldiers, they're gonna respond. I mean, how would we respond? If they kill ours? They're gonna do something, I promise you that. Those goddamn Kennedys are gonna destroy this country if we don't do something about this. There's little to say about 'Thirteen Days'. We met with the filmmakers, walked around the building, chatted. I pointed out to them the script was... I guess they weren't writing the script then. I don't remember exactly where we were. They hadn't written the script yet. I had a discussion with the director and he conceded he was going to take artistic liberties with history, which is not surprising, that's what everybody does. But when we got the script it was just impossible, it was so unrealistic, and we sort of did this... "My historian is smarter than your historian." And we kind of went back and forth and they insisted that things had happened that... my historians said did not happen. Particularly over some of the portrayals of McNamara and his relationship with the... In fact the whole White House versus the military. We felt that overall the purpose of the military in 'Thirteen Days' was to serve as a... thuggish, malign presence against which the Kennedys could glow in contrast. This is a letter from Phil Strub to the producers of 'Thirteen Days' from July 1998, where they told them they're not giving them assistance for this film. They're saying they won't help them because "Both General Lemay and General Taylor are depicted in a negative "and inauthentic way as unintelligent and bellicose." But in fact that's exactly what they were. The two generals were very belligerent, they wanted to go to war, they wanted to attack Cuba. The record is clear on that because they have tapes showing it. The United States established the First Amendment of the Constitution as one of the keys to the American system of democracy. It's important to note that when the framers created our Bill of Rights, the very first thing they guaranteed was freedom of speech and freedom of the press in the 1st Amendment. The US protects speech to a level that I think is unprecedented around the world. We have shortcomings, but one thing we can point to with pride is the First Amendment and the courts have historically always been highly protective of the First Amendment. The problem is one of method, in that the military wants to shape the message but they know that they can't do it directly, they can't use a stick. If they go after a filmmaker who puts together a negative film, the courts will immediately shut them down. So instead of using a stick, they dangle a carrot. And they say that if you work with us, if you change your film, we'll save you millions of dollars. We'll give you access to aircraft carriers,

film footage, US personnel. We'll even set off ordnance so it looks like a real war instead of those computer-generated things. The Pentagon is like a giant white shark, that public relations machine over there. It just moves through the water, looking at targets of opportunity and going snap, snap, snap. And that's not going to change. Congress's interest is they want to look patriotic and they want to get re-elected, so they won't stop it. And the commercial media which by the way due to the vertical integration of the media, the fact that these media companies now own the movie studios, now own the TV networks and the book publishers, are looking much less critically at all these issues because they can profit by this. So there is no large opposition to what they are doing and therefore I think it may get worse. And the only thing I can tell the viewers, the people who are the end users of these products is: when you see these kinds of films, understand you're looking at government propaganda. Is the American will in favour of our involvement in these pictures? I have no way of knowing as there haven't been any surveys. But I can tell you one thing. Their elected officials are not opposed. Because it's nothing that we keep quiet or secret. We don't advertise it, we don't choose to try to be prominent to gain attention for ourselves. The public affairs world wants to stay behind the camera, not in front of it. But there's certainly nothing that we're hesitant about. We're not ashamed of the relationship nor have we ever heard any complaints or any requests to modify it from the elected officials of the American public. So I can only say that though we may get an occasional letter saying "Why did you work on this picture? Why did you work on that TV show?" most of those we didn't, they just think we did. Americans have no bloody idea who Phil Strub is. And yet he has done tremendous work in shaping popular culture. They wouldn't like it. I mean, if you told them who Phil Strub was, they wouldn't like it. They wouldn't like what he does or what he represents. But that's the point... Nobody tells them. I do solemnly swear... support and defend the Constitution of the United States ..against all enemies, foreign and domestic. So help me God. I was once told by a commanding officer "It's not a question of if you go to combat, it's a question of when. "And you have to ask yourself "Will you be prepared?" Since no films have come out of Hollywood about Iraq or Afghanistan, the military has decided to take the initiative. After 9/11, their approach to their image has radically changed. The result is this new type of short documentary, made to look like Hollywood movies and intended to be shown in theatres like Movietone newsreels of the past. They work 14, 16, 18 hours a day, more in some cases

and they do it with a smile. They want to do stuff that's important for their country. But in this case, there is no screenwriter or director. Not even a journalist. No more intermediaries. It's the soldiers themselves that do the filming, with a camera in one hand and a rifle in the other. Anybody can take a video-camera and point it, but to go out and also be under fire, as you've seen from the films, you know that's not Hollywood, that's real. I mean, these guys were going in front of live rounds, missiles, tanks and there's no games,

there's no re-takes, there's no re-shoots. They have to get it and their mission was to get the shots with the best visual content of the background,

to the foreground, whatever, that they could possibly get. Propaganda is creating it for you to do something. This isn't, this is telling you something that happened,

not asking you to do anything whenever you watch this. It's documenting what happened. The goal is very simple... for every person in America to see it. The message? There's people overseas protecting your freedom of speech, that's it. There could be nothing more poetic, nothing more symbolic than the US military supporting an anti-war film. And that's the great loss. These officers could in fact be the finest moment for our system, to show that the US military is there to protect viewpoints, all viewpoints, even those that don't favour it. But instead it has yielded to this great temptation. You know, Oscar Wilde once said that the only way to be rid of temptation is to yield to it. And that really sums up the military liaison officers... They have yielded to every temptation, great and small, to manage the image that appears on the big screen. My name is Bruce and I'm from New York. I have a Vietnamese Campaign Ribbon, Vietnamese Service Ribbon, National Defense Ribbon and a Purple Heart. For the brothers and sisters this year. MELANCHOLY MUSIC SWELLS Captions (c) SBS Australia 2005


Cigarette packs use different names, numbers and colours so they all appear to be different. But what you should know is light, mild or low-tar cigarettes are not a healthier choice, because whatever the pack colour, whatever the number, whatever they are called, all cigarettes are toxic and they all cause serious damage. Call Quitline on 131 848. These boys and girls school shoes - primary and secondary - ATMOSPHERIC MUSIC Nearly a decade ago, a man's fantasy became reality in a forum never seen before - Kitchen Stadium, a giant cooking arena. The motivation for spending his fortune to create Kitchen Stadium was to encounter new, original cuisines, which could be called true artistic creations.

A la cuisine!

DRAMATIC MUSIC To realise his dream, he started choosing the top chefs of various styles of cooking. And he named his men the Iron Chefs,

Iron Chef Chinese is Chen Kenichi. And Masahiko Kobe is Iron Chef Italian. Kitchen Stadium is the arena where Iron Chefs await the challenges of master chefs from all over the world. Both the Iron Chef and challenger have one hour to tackle the theme ingredient of the day. Using all their senses, skills, creativity, they're to prepare artistic dishes never tasted before. And if ever a challenger wins over the Iron Chef, he or she will gain the people's ovation and fame forever. Every battle, reputations are on the line in Kitchen Stadium, where master chefs pit their artistic creations against each other. What inspiration will today's challenger bring?

And how will the Iron Chef fight back? The heat will be on! TAKESHI KAGA: If memory serves me right, there was once a Japanese chef residing in Italy who started to gain name.

His skills were endorsed by the great Vissani.

He was slated to become the very best Italian chef in Japan upon his return. He did, in fact, return to Japan but did not cook at all and we lost track of his whereabouts. I so desire to meet him, to taste the dishes praised by Vissani himself. So I contacted the top Italian restaurants in Japan

to search for him, again without success. Recently I found out why - he is no longer walking the path he followed in Italy. Believe it or not, we found him driving a food delivery truck. Today's challenger - the lost legend: It was at age 22 when he chose to pursue cooking as a career.

And after training in Japan for seven years, he left for Italy and luckily was accepted by one of the top restaurants - Vissani. The owner and chef of the restaurant, Jean Franco Vissani, is also referred to as the 'Madman', for his stubbornness and obsessiveness towards cooking. For instance, all the ingredients he uses are homemade. He even keeps his own sturgeons in a lake for caviar.