Uncle Sam Wants Hollywood, but Hollywood Has Qualms

In the wake of the unprecedented meeting last Sunday between the Bush administration and the heads of every network and studio, many in the creative community, from Robert Redford to Oliver Stone, are growing concerned about governmental intrusion into the creative process.

Last Sunday, all of Hollywood’s corporate sector emerged from a meeting with senior Bush advisor Karl Rove unanimously endorsing the government’s request for film and television projects promoting America and “American values.” Rove had, in fact, enumerated seven specific themes, from tolerance to volunteerism, that he hoped the community would address.

The media titans and the White House all offered assurances that nobody is talking about government control of content, but frankly, many writers, actors and directors aren’t so sure.

“I’m not being cynical. I’m being realistic. If [Rove] is not out here to talk about content, why the trip? Why the trip paid for by taxpayer money? To talk about [the movie] ‘Monsters, Inc.’?” said Larry Gelbart, creator of the long-running series “MASH,” which followed a medical unit in the Korean War. “I think there are enough smart, patriotic, sensible and well-meaning people out here to be able to find our own way without getting in bed with the government, because they always have another agenda. We do too. The one we have is economy and the one [they have] is politics. It’s not a healthy brew.”

Although the war is popular in Hollywood, as in the rest of the nation, many writers, actors and directors see this as a 1st Amendment issue.

Part of the confusion and wariness stems from the fact that very word “content” implies different things to different people. To some, it means documentaries and public service announcements; to others, particularly the studios, it very specifically refers to the story lines and characters in movies and TV. Is it reasonable to assume that Washington only wants commercials touting volunteerism or support for the troops, but doesn’t care what movies and TV shows Hollywood actually churns out?

At the same time, it is unclear who will be steering the new wartime effort--Washington or Hollywood--after the honeymoon period ends.

Already, the studios have each nominated a high-ranking executive to join a committee, run by MPAA head Jack Valenti, which will coordinate the specific proposals.

“It’s the highest of priorities for all of us,” said Paramount vice chairman Rob Friedman. “We’ve had numerous meetings here about it.’

The current collaborative spirit with Washington might come as something of a relief to the media moguls who were hauled in front of Congress last year and castigated about marketing violent programming to children. Indeed, Hollywood has long been a whipping boy for cultural conservatives who blame the industry for the nation’s moral ills.

Yet for those who actually create the programming, the war on Hollywood has always had a more personal tinge, as it is the personal fruits of their labor which have been attacked. Moreover, as the industry sorts out which movies and TV shows it is going to make in the wake of Sept. 11, there is widespread trepidation that a process of self-censorship has already begun. Many have suggested that certain kinds of projects, such as ones that question the U.S. government, are rapidly becoming verboten.

Of the dozens of producers and directors called by The Times this week, only a handful agreed to speak publicly about their discomfort. Some made reference to Bill Maher, the characteristically polemic host of ABC’s “Politically Incorrect,” who was nearly fired from the network’s late-night show after he said on the air Sept. 17 that U.S. military air strategy in the past had been cowardly.

Outraged viewers said he was unpatriotic, and FedEx and Sears yanked their ads from the show. Maher declined to comment for this article. One television director who declined to speak for attribution said he didn’t want to be “Maher-ized” by being skeptical before the studios and networks had unveiled their plans of action.

So while Gelbart’s comments may represent the views of a number of producers, his forthrightness is the exception because of the fear many have of speaking up during a time of tremendous grief and shock. Many worry that questioning the U.S. response or the White House strategy--part of which involves seeking help from the most powerful image-makers in the world--would seem insensitive.

Still, the questions persist.

“If content is not on the table, what is?” asked Academy Award-winning director Robert Redford. “To keep it simple, what was the purpose? Who is the person designing it? What does Karl Rove stand for?”

Stone, whose film “JFK” (1991) explored alternative theories surrounding the assassination of John F. Kennedy, said the Bush administration is essentially talking out of both sides of its mouth.

“They’re saying, ‘We’re not censors,’ but I don’t agree,” said Stone, who said he supports the war. “In fact, [the Bush administration] is just going about it benignly. They’re not being heavy-handed. They’re just saying accent the positive American point of view in your work rather than the negative. It would be wrong to be wholly negative, but national security must not smother reform or constructive dissent.”

The White House has been adamant it is not interested in dictating content, although it would be perfectly happy if Hollywood projects reflected the triumphant American spirit.

Mark McKinnon, who shaped Bush’s media message during last year’s campaign and remains close to the administration, attended Sunday’s meeting with Rove. While saying he didn’t expect the administration to be informed of any specific projects, McKinnon did offer this: “I think we will see television programs with content geared toward Sept. 11 and terrorism. Programming that in some way touches these issues. Specific movies and TV shows, trailers and PSAs [public service announcements]. People trying to figure out how to communicate internationally the American values.”

The studios have chosen to send both marketing specialists and government relations professionals to serve on the new executive committee charged with coordinating the industry’s efforts. They include Sony’s vice president for external affairs, Hope Boonshaft; Jody Dreyer, Disney senior vice president for corporate public service; Andy Spahn, DreamWorks corporate communications chief; and Eddie Egan, Universal executive vice president of motion pictures marketing.

“Through them, we’ll begin to move swiftly to bring to fruition what we want to do,” said Valenti, one of the meeting’s co-organizers. “Keep in mind, the government is not going to say what we put in our messages. We’re not getting an approval from the government. It’s what we want to say.”

Fox Co-Chairman Jim Gianopulos, who attended Sunday’s meeting, said Rove impressed his audience by explicitly taking content “off the table” and saying that the “best message the entertainment industry could beam across the world was that there exists in American society the freedom to make films and tell stories of our choice and to air alternate views on our networks.”

“That was something that really resonated in the room, and everybody responded very positively to it,” Gianopulos said.

Robert Iger, president of the Walt Disney Company, which also owns the ABC network, said the media conglomerate’s goals are “loftier than just a war effort.”

“It’s about coming to grips with the fact that the world and our lives have changed since Sept. 11. As communications conglomerates, we have a certain responsibility, given our reach and the power of our messages to help the world,” he said.

Immediately after Sept. 11, Disney rolled out PSAs on tolerance and volunteerism that ran on ABC, the Disney Channel and Radio Disney. It also filmed a special episode of ABC’s “Who Wants to Be a Millionaire” with members of the armed forces as contestants.

Another PSA, this one supporting the USO, hits the airwaves in about two weeks, and Iger said he donated several thousand videos to the USO and to military bases in the last few weeks.

“I don’t think that reeks of politics, or the administration using a heavy hand in any way to persuade or influence content,” Iger said.

With the president’s high public approval ratings, it was a perfect time to start making inroads in the community, according to some.

“It’s my understanding that Karl Rove is a very politically astute man who has had to cope with the far right in his base,” said Oscar Award-winning actor-director and Democratic activist Warren Beatty. “It seems like a good opportunity for him to come and make nice. How can you fault a guy for that? It seems there’s not a big story here.”

Beatty cautioned that Hollywood is no longer one cohesive monolith where one or two people’s word could influence the action of the majority of artists.

Indeed, Jack Shea, the head of the Directors Guild, which represents about 12,400 television and film directors, attended Sunday’s meeting, and said, “It’s sort of good to have a nudge. We have the opportunity to do something really good for our country. I have not run into anyone who has any critical feelings right now.” The heads of all three artists’ guilds will be reporting back to their members in the next few weeks about the results of the confab.

Others were more cautiously optimistic.

Jerry Bruckheimer, producer of “Armageddon” (1998) and the upcoming “Black Hawk Down,” which looks at the U.S. military mission in Somalia, said he is waiting to see what specific steps the studios take.

“If they’re talking about censorship, that’s not a good thing. If they’re talking about building morale in light of what’s going on, that’s a good thing,” he said.

Screenwriter Eric Roth, who won an Oscar for “Forrest Gump” (1994) and co-wrote the upcoming film “Ali,” spoke to a feeling that ran through every conversation for this story. “Obviously, I personally want to do anything. The writers I know want to do anything to support the country,” he said. But, he said, the projects have to be organic.

“I feel OK with it as long as it doesn’t get into content. That would be a sacred cow to me. I believe in freedom of speech, which is what we’re fighting for as much as anything else, so people can play music and their statues don’t have to be blown up. But I trust the people who are involved,” Roth said. “I think they’re good creative people, and that they have artistic integrity as a whole.”

For their part, politicians on Capitol Hill seem eager to learn how to help the White House polish up America’s role overseas through media and public diplomacy.

It’s a complementary tactic to Rove’s strategy, considering most of what will result from the Hollywood-Washington powwow will affect domestic consumption, where Bush’s approval ratings and support for U.S. military action in Afghanistan are above 80%, according to a recent Times poll.

On Wednesday, the Senate International Relations Committee asked for input from television writer-producer John Romano. He testified along with the former chairman of the Advertising Council, a reporter from an Arab-language newspaper, a member of the Broadcasting Board of Governors and the President of the Middle East Institute.

Noting that many nations can only afford to buy inexpensive American programming such as old soap operas and ‘70s action shows like “Baretta,” Romano suggested beaming quality television shows, like “The Practice” or “Third Watch,” that might better illustrate life in America.

“If they’re not buying a show like ‘The Practice’ or ‘ER,’ let’s give it to them for free. It’s our own interest we’d be serving.”

However, he cautioned the committee, despite the “entertainment industry’s ability and willingness to be of help ... [there is] something that lies outside our abilities, and that is the creation and production of propaganda. It’s just not something we do well. At our best, our shows tend to show the diversity, complexity, the multi-voiced quality of American life, with its clash of viewpoints; that clash is the sound of a free society.”

Given the fact that a movie usually takes at least two years to go from inception to screen, long enough that the war on terrorism might have subsided, several creative types pointed out that TV might be more affected by Washington’s new agenda than film.

Yet Anthony Zuiker, co-creator of the hit series “CSI,” which reaches more than 20 million viewers a week, was leery about suddenly dropping topical, administration-suggested themes into his show.

“If I’m watching TV and I see anthrax, anthrax, anthrax, and then on Thursday at 9 p.m., I see more anthrax, there’s no checks and balances,” Zuiker said. “If we were to do anything to help that effort at patriotism, we need to make concerted efforts to touch upon themes of how people are feeling right now, which is heroism, and camaraderie, and teamwork, and leadership.”

Zuiker even questioned the propriety of having Hollywood celebrities hawk messages in public service announcements: “I don’t feel that actors are the appropriate vehicles to get that across. I think those should be done by credible people, like members of the CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention].”

While Washington’s very public attempt to recruit Hollywood to its agenda is unusual, several arms of the government, such as the CIA and particularly the military, have tried to exert influence on how they are portrayed in Hollywood fare.

Just last winter, the Department of Defense bestowed upon Valenti the first ever Citizen Patriot Award during a $300,000 party in his honor.

The Pentagon also carefully vets scripts before it grants permission to filmmakers to use any of the government’s hardware.

For instance, it gave considerable assistance to such upcoming films as “Black Hawk Down” and “Behind Enemy Lines,” granting them use of helicopters, military personnel and the aircraft carrier Carl Vinson.

But the Pentagon denied Stone access to its weaponry when he was making “Platoon,” a movie about Vietnam, which went on to win Oscars for best picture and best director.

After Stone submitted his script, he received a long letter in response “about what I should fix, and it was the entire script! They said these characters were not realistic,” Stone said.

These days, the military hardly needs to vet the scripts, as market forces bolster their cause. There is not a media mogul who is unaware of the fact that patriotism appears to be selling.

Disney, for instance, is making its televised Christmas parade a tribute to the military, and this month it aired “Saving Private Ryan” on ABC.

Fox rushed up the release of the Owen Wilson-Gene Hackman-led “Behind Enemy Lines” after the film, about an American pilot downed in Bosnia, tested very well. It premiered Saturday at the Naval Air Station North Island, in San Diego, as well as on the Carl Vinson, which is stationed off Bahrain in the Persian Gulf.

Whether Hollywood’s recruitment into the war on terrorism turns out to be a worthwhile endeavor, an erosion of the 1st Amendment or simply another marketing ploy remains to be seen, although Redford summed up the ambivalent and contradictory mood in the creative community: “There’s something either potentially insidious here or potentially quite positive.”

*

Times staff writers Marisa Schultz and Ronald Brownstein contributed to this story.