They don't make war films like they used to

The problem with all of these Vietnam-based justifications for the modern war film is that they are built on falsehoods. For example, those who thoroughly have investigated the Vietnam War--including Guenter Lewy, who wrote a magisterial history of it--have concluded that Vietnam, far from having the highest incidence of war atrocities in American history, had some of the lowest.

I also would cite the despicable, unforgivable treatment by Hollywood of the Vietnam veteran. There have been numerous "compassionate" films about the effects of Vietnam on those who fought there. Movies like "'Rolling Thunder" with John Lithgow, "In Country" with Bruce Willis, "Cease Fire" with Don Johnson, and "Jackknife" with Ed Harris depict veterans as psychiatric cases who came home from the war broken. Then there is the absurd "Rambo" series about a long-suffering vet twisted into a psychotic killer. In truth, the typical Vietnam veteran is not homeless or disillusioned or suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder. The statistics readily are available from the Department of Veterans Affairs, and this is what they reveal: Vietnam vets--people who actually served in combat in that war--are less likely to have psychiatric difficulties, drug problems, or have committed suicide (as well as having a higher median income) than people of comparable socioeconomic backgrounds who did not serve in Vietnam.

Neither the U.S. military nor the ordinary American's perception of the military has changed. What is different is Hollywood itself. During WWII, there was a spectacular war effort in Hollywood and a great enthusiasm among its elite--even the biggest stars--for serving their country. Jimmy Stewart, the number-two rated male movie star at the time, enlisted in 1942, flew 51 bombing missions with the Army Air Corps, and ended up a brigadier general. Henry Fonda rejected the proposal that he simply promote and sell war bonds, insisted on serving in combat, and was wounded in the Pacific. Such behavior was considered normal. This was America, after all, and Hollywood was part of America. Bringing this forward into the late 1950s, one of the great events of my childhood--and you have no idea what a sensation it created--was when the country's number-one pop star, a "kid named Elvis Presley, cheerfully interrupted his multimillion dollar career to be drafted into the Army.

It is hard even to imagine all of this today. Hollywood is a different world. For one thing, it is a much less populist institution. Clark Gable, before he became a movie star, was a truck driver. So was Presley. Movie people tended to come from humble backgrounds. By and large, Hollywood was not a place of upper class pretensions. It was a place that made movies for the entertainment of ordinary Americans. This is far from the case now.

Hollywood's elite

Part of what changed--and it was a change already under way prior to Vietnam--was Hollywood's transformation from a mass appeal industry to an elite institution. Many of the major stars today have an Ivy League background. A large number of them are second or third generation stars--people who have been born into the movie business and have lived in it their entire lives. So, the industry no longer is connected with the public in the way that it used to be. Certainly, very few of Tinseltown's luminaries have had any experience in, or contact with, the military. All of this is reflected in the new mission that Hollywood has adopted: not to entertain, but to challenge and discomfort the public.