Guts and Glory: The Making of the American Military Image in Film (review)

Regular Feature | Book Reviews Book Reviews Lawrence H. Suid. Guts and Glory: The Making of the American Military Image in Film. University Press of Kentucky, 2002. 748 pages; $50.00 cloth, $29.95 softpaper. Definitive Work First published in 1978, Larry Suid's classic war film book, Guts and Glory, took a hard look at the symbiotic relationship that existed between the Hollywood motion picture industry and the U.S. Armed Forces. Citing one example after another, Dr. Suid detailed this intricate alliance, tracing its origin back to the inchoate silent pictures days and culminating with the aftermath ofVietnam. During these four decades, military commanders—after scrutinizing every script—provided an array of logistical supporttomaintain apositiveimage, whilethe industry's moguls—eager to produce money-making photodramas—always waved the Red, White, and Blue. Why not? What is wrong with patriotism? How about a little profit? Almost twenty-five years later, this quid pro quo arrangement has moved into high gear. Eager to uphold its stellar reputation , the Pentagon eagerly cooperates with motion picture directors, offering supervised assistance on every level to promulgate past glories and recent victories. But how pervasive is this contemporary trend? Are there strings attached to military assistance? What subjects are off-limits? Anything taboo? To answer these questions, Dr. Suid has added 500 pages of commentary to his original manuscript and produced an elaborate study about the Hollywood war movie, its influence in shaping public opinion, and the subliminal theme of patriotism. As a revised and expanded edition, Guts & Glory: The Making ofthe American Military Image in Film, now stands as the definitive work about America's consummate love affair with combat movies . As Dr. Suid explains, the Hollywood war film frequently contains misinformation, distortion, omission, and poetic license in the final production. Even with high-ranking officers standing behind their backs, directors often interweave facts with expectations in their quest to achieve a screenplay that will appeal to moviegoers. Look at the FDR wheelchair scene in Pearl Harbor, he cites. Here, the American president—providing the impetus for the upcoming Doolittle Raid—rises unaided from his chair as a demonstration of self-reliance. Everyone, including Jon Voight (the actor portraying Roosevelt) acknowledged that such a feat was impossible but its inclusion in the film created wonderful meaning for American determinism. Even the Tokyo bombing run misrepresented the events because, historically, each of the B-25's arrived individually over the Japanese cities, not collectively . And what about that radio command post scene in Hawaii ? No radio transmitter could send messages that entire distance. And what security officer in his right mind would allow a lovesick girl—a civilian—into a classified communications center ? Another elaborate production, Saving Private Ryan—a screenplay "filled with errors and a lack of believability"—contained similar flaws including the use of a forty-two-year-old actor , Tom Hanks, in the leading role as a spirited U.S. Ranger. Here, the noted director, Steven Spielberg, took numerous cinematic liberties to create a storyline that bent the truth for entertainment purposes. Just for starters, Dr. Suid, suggests, "the reports of the deaths ofPrivate Ryan's two brothers on D-Day simply could not have reached the Pentagon in two days." Later, as Captain Miller (Tom Hanks) leads his men across the fields of France, the GIs, strolling almost lackadaisically, waxed philosophically about the validity of their mission rather than concentrating on the hostile terrain. And why are they bunched up? Did these U.S. Rangers forget their basic training instructions: always move rapidly and quietly, keeping under cover as much as possible. And what about Spielberg's lack of military experience? His only knowledge of war came from watching hundreds ofHollywood combat screenplays , most of them during his formative years. As for the Vietnam Conflict, the Department of Defense walked a cinematic tightrope as maverickdirectors, such as Oliver Stone, Stanley Kubrick, and Sidney Furie viewedtheUnited States' involvement in this runaway conflict in strictly pejorative terms, with such titles as Platoon, Full Metal Jacket, and The Boys in Company C. Here, during this unpopular Southeast Asian war, Vol. 32.2 (2002) | 91 Book Reviews | Regular Feature American GIs frequently lacked discipline, used numerous...