Are US war movies required by law to incorrectly portray military uniforms?

[Jman]

As an Army officer, it is annoying beyond belief to watch a movie about the military, when they can't get the uniforms right. My soldiers (and quite a few others) have said that the movie makers are REQUIRED to have at least one error on the uniform when they make it. That sounds totally bogus to me, as there is nothing that says you can't wear a military uniform when you're not in the military. For instance, if you are not in the military, the UCMJ doesn't apply, and the US law can only nab you for impersonating an officer if you try to act as an officer to gain some sort of privelige or right. So, what's the Straight Dope? I've done some searching online, but all I found in favor of the 'it's against the rules' argument is some anecdotal evidence, nothing concrete. I've found nothing that directly says it's bogus, either.

If it is bogus, as I thought, why can't the filmmakers get uniforms right? It's awful. For Army uniforms, download AR 670-1 and read it...it's the first hit when you type it in Google. Watching "The Last Castle" is was very frustrating to see an Army Colonel wearing his rank and branch like a Navy person, and a Captain wearing it like a Naval officer, but turned 90 degrees wrong. It hurts, it hurts!!!

[Starguard]

Heehehe :p

How familiar are you with the T.V. series M.A.S.H? I think I've seen just about every episode of that show, and I can't remember seeing a single one where they wore uniforms with either U.S. ARMY or Name tags on them anywhere. :p


I also find it terribly funny to watch shows displaying American Fighter Pilots engaged in dogfights with enemy Migs.....when the actual planes (migs) they were fighting were anything ranging from McDonnell F4c Phantoms to F-5 Tiger II's

I guess that Hollywood and other movie makers think that the General Public knows nothing at all about the Military at all. I even saw some girl running around wearing a jacket with a lot of patches sewn on them ( some of them were marine staff sergeant stripes that were sewn on upside down) :D

Obut to get back to your origional question, I have absolutely no dea why people do this.. Hopefully someone will chime in on this and provide a factual answer to satisfy both our curiosities :cool:

[muttrox]

FWIW: Just finished Absolutely American, which follows 4 years at West Point, and the cadets makes the same claim. However, if I remember right it does not actually say it is a matter of law, but just that the military "makes sure" there is at least one detail wrong in each movie. So that no foreign power can use the movies to create better infiltrators. Seems like ludicrous reasoning to me, but there's a bit more anecdotal evidence for you from a top military academy.

[JRDelirious]

Heehehe :p

I also find it terribly funny to watch shows displaying American Fighter Pilots engaged in dogfights with enemy Migs.....when the actual planes (migs) they were fighting were anything ranging from McDonnell F4c Phantoms to F-5 Tiger II's


Hey, you try renting out a pair of Flogger-D's for your movie (although I'm willing to bet some former Soviet Republic would be willing to play ball, that's a long way to go for 5 minutes of footage ;) ) Actually, in the case of some of the pervasive thinly-disguised-Navy-PR-pieces (Top Gun, Supercarrier, Pensacola WOG, JAG) (y'know, the Army and Air Force should really get themselves the phone number for the Navy's Hollywood agent) it may be the Navy itself lends the film footage of their OPFOR aircraft -- mostly F5s and F16s painted in "commie" colors. Otherwise they probably rent out the aircraft from one of California's aerospace contractors, of whom Mikoyan & Guyerevich are not one.

Jman, I think that some of your instances are more a case of the (mentioned in another thread) "why can't they do more than 30 seconds of research" syndrome. Specially with the movie/TV people being generally oblivious to anything military-related, or if they got anyone who has some experience, that person probably had it two changes of Uniform Regs. ago. It "looks sort of right" so they proceed. (the Navy-style use of insignia in Army uniforms you mention is probably derived from the wardrobe people having soaked up 20 years of Navy-themed movies and TV)

[spifflog]

I think this uniform issue falls into the urban legend category. As a Naval Officer, I've seen many films that accurately show military uniforms. Crimson Tide, Officer and a Gentleman and The hunt for Red October to name a few. They all have naval uniforms that are shown 100% accurately.
Frankly, it seems a little dumb to think that the enemy of the day, Russians, Chinese, Al-Quida, can’t steal or figure out what a real uniform looks like. I just think that most of the time, Hollywood, no friend of the military to begin with, feels that close enough is good enough. Hell, as a Navy guy, I couldn't tell you exactly what an Army, Air Force or Marine Corps uniform should look like, so I don't think that the average movie going public will know the difference.
I've asked a Public Affairs Officer O-6 if he had ever heard of this uniform prohibition, and he said "no."

[Ravenman]

My WAG is that part of it has to do with whether the DOD agrees to serve as a technical consultant for the films. There's been many stories about DOD playing politics, more or less, with which films they will help out on -- basically, only those that show the military in a good light.

Of course, even films with no DOD assistants hire technical consultants, but as one can probably imagine, the worse the movie, the less likely they are to bother with being accurate about details... the "director's vision" overrules Army regulations every time!

[ElectricZ]

It probably has more to do with laziness and good old-fashioned, honest mistakes. Laziness in that the producers/directors/costume designers figure that people won't know or won't care if a particular insignia is upside down or on the wrong shoulder or whatever. Most people won't know, or won't care. And honest mistakes... Well, say your project is already a week behind schedule on the first day of shooting. Your costume department has a bunch of uniforms, but the insignia came separately. You've got 50 people, lighting folks, sound folks, camera operators, actors, all standing around waiting for some guy holding a polaroid picture of a Vietnam-era enlisted infantryman trying to figure out where to put insignia on a modern Air Force general's dress uniform. Their goal is to get the shot done and move onto the next one as quick as they can. Mistakes are bound to happen.

Of course, that's just sloppy filmmaking and it drives me nuts too. But it's not just the result of a bias against the military. Watch a Grisham movie with a laywer and see what they say. Watch "Wargames" or "Hackers" in the company of geeks and let the flames begin. Or when someone from New York sees a Hollywood movie about the Big Apple and they get it all wrong. Heck, I bet there are moves made about MAKING MOVIES that they don't get right. :)

It all boils down to the care that the crew puts into research and perfectionism... For my money, little things like that make me appreciate a good movie more, but they don't necessarily ruin the whole experience for me.

EZ

[Loach]

I did find this (http://uscode.house.gov/uscode-cgi/fastweb.exe?getdoc+uscview+t17t20+445+75++%28military%2) which makes it a crime to wear a uniform in order to deceive. An actor in a movie would not qualify. According to this law even if you didn't wear it properly you could be found guilty so the idea of getting something wrong on purpose doesn't make sense.

But this statute (http://uscode.house.gov/uscode-cgi/fastweb.exe?getdoc+uscview+t17t20+444+75++%28military%2) makes it illegal for anyoneto wear a uniform without permission even without an intent to deceive, but I don't recall this ever being enforced.
Hopefully some lawyer out there can clarify it. I could not find anything relating to a law making it manditory to get the uniform wrong.


My WAG is that part of it has to do with whether the DOD agrees to serve as a technical consultant for the films. There's been many stories about DOD playing politics, more or less, with which films they will help out on -- basically, only those that show the military in a good light.
It is true that the DOD has the right to turn down calls for technical assistance do to script content. They refused to help on Clear and Present Danger due to the ending. The book has the crew of a MH-53 disobeying orders and going on a rescue mission by themselves. In order to get help from DOD(which included filming of military jets and on an aircraft carrier) the film makers had Jack Ryan hire a private helicopter and do it himself. Ruined the whole story. I personally do not have a problem with the policy. Hollywood has every right to film anything they want but why should the military make the effort and put in the time to a project that makes them look bad.

This does not excuse the lack of attention to detail that many films show. Any assistant grip who spent 6 months in the army should be able to fix most of the problems. I have no problem with small direct to video movies like American Ninja XX. I'm sure they have a small budget and no time to research (and probably don't care). I have a problem with big budget productions about the military that get it wrong on a consistant basis. For example that smoldering piece of crap Courage Under Fire. There is SO much wrong with that movie but one thing about the uniforms that I remember is on Meg Ryan. She a medevac pilot. I one scene she is wearing the branch insignia of the nursing corps.
Did the film-makers think you need to be a nurse to fly a medevac helicopter? Just ask someone! Thats OK, its the same movie that put a door gunner on a medevac helicopter. Anyone ever hear of the Geneva Convention? Don't get me started on the tank stuff.

[Ravenman]

I have a problem with big budget productions about the military that get it wrong on a consistant basis. For example that smoldering piece of crap Courage Under Fire. I remember specifically that DOD pulled its assistance for that movie (which, as you noted, they have a perfect right to do) right before filming began. That surely had something to do with it.
Link. (http://www.workprint.net/prodnotes/courageunderfireprod.html)

But overall, I'm right with ElectricZ: there's no excuse for slopiness, but fixing plot holes is more important task on the set, to me at least, than fixing costumes.

[Spiff]

<snippage, fore and aft>Hollywood, no friend of the military to begin withI don't agree with this generalization.

I quickly run out of fingers counting the number of Hollywood films that show the U.S. military in a very positive light.

[Walloon]

It's a myth. I've read the Department of Defense's manual on what services it will offer to filmmakers, and there was no such stipulation. They do require that you submit a complete script, and if they believe it portrays the armed forces innacurately or in a negative light, they will withdraw from participation.

The other fun part of the manual was the catalog of various equipment (tanks, helicopters, etc.), and the daily cost to rent their use.

[Scruloose]

I know that for the Coast Guard, the policy is exactly what others have said for the DOD branches: Scripts are reviewed by the appropriate office, and support of the project is either given or denied based on whether or not the CG is portrayed in an accurate manner or not.

For example, the CG wasn't too happy about the TV movie, The Beast, so no actual CG boats or helos were used, and the uniforms were all frigged up. Clear and Present Danger, on the other hand, was given full support. Although our depiction in the film was significantly less than in the book, an actual cutter with crew was used and the uniforms and command structure was accurate.

Interestingly, Baywatch was always given full support from the CG, and many cutters, boats, helos and crews appeared in many episodes. The CG felt it translated into good PR and cheap advertising for recruiting, despite much groaning from some in the service.

[Scruloose]

They refused to help on Clear and Present Danger due to the ending. The book has the crew of a MH-53 disobeying orders and going on a rescue mission by themselves. In order to get help from DOD(which included filming of military jets and on an aircraft carrier) the film makers had Jack Ryan hire a private helicopter and do it himself. Ruined the whole story.

I should clarify my above post Re: Clear and Present Danger. The CG gave full support only after most of the CG's depiction in the book was removed, and what remained was significantly changed to reflect what the CG wanted them to project about our service. Lots of Clancy fans (in the CG) were pretty upset at the final product, looking nothing at all like the actual book portrayal. In reality, probably all of them were.

[clairobscur]

This does not excuse the lack of attention to detail that many films show. .



Honesttly, I wouldn't blame them for such lack of attention. Of course, it would be possible to find someone aknowledgeable about US uniforms. But you're focusing on only one detail. While in any movie, so many things will be depicted that there's no way in hell they could have everything right. Anybody with a passing knowledge of a particular topic will find faults in a movie ("these events are supposed to take place in 1932 but the car depicted only began to be produced in 1935", "the control room of a nuclear power plant doesn't look at all like that", etc.., etc..

I read recently on a travel board a similar complaint : in some american movie taking place in Paris, an actor would leave his hotel, have a breakfast in the nearby "brasserie", and walk some minutes to meet someone at some square. But the hotel, the brasserie (which both happened to be well-known by the poster), and the meeting spot are situated long away from each other in three different districts of Paris.


So, there will always be inconsistencies in movies, and always some people able to notice them amongst the watchers. I really don't think it matters much as long as the movie doesn't grossly mislead people about facts (for instance historical, social or political facts, I really hate this, but then, there has been some debates here on this topic, and many posters disagree, on the basis that "it's just a movie and people ought to know it"). And I believe that even if they were willing to, filmakers *couldn't* possibly get every detail right. And even more with things like getting your hand on a real MIG fighter, (or even worse, like in another movie the UD DoD had an issue with, a US carrier) if the Russian airforce/US navy isn't willing to provide one.

[Jplacer]

As a young page designer at a newspaper many years ago, I ran a picture of a general who gave a speech in town. Like an idiot, I flipped the picture around so it would look better on the page. Needless to say, his stripes were now on the wrong shoulder.

The paper got a ton of angry phone calls and letters to the editor. I nearly got fired over the incident. Luckily, I didn't get fired and I made sure I never, ever make that mistake again.

[Padeye]

My pet peeve is primarily with navy movies, which almost invariable having everyone wearing covers at sea and saluting when uncovered. The last bit is percular to the navy because the other armed forces salute even when not wearing a hat. Oh, addressing NCOs (Sergeants, Chief Petty Officers) as "sir" and saluting them.

[Spavined Gelding]

In the bad old days one of the standard practical jokes was to get your hands on somebody's blouse (uniform jacket for civilians) and turn the grade insignia sideways or reverse the branch insignia and the US insignia on the lapels. There are few things more fun than to send a guy off to report to the post commander or the division commander or the chief of staff with his brass all screwed up. I guess you had to be there.

[silenus]

. While in any movie, so many things will be depicted that there's no way in hell they could have everything right.

Batpucky. Any reasonably aware person could fix most of the problems we see. I could do it in an instant, and I'm not 1/10 as informed as others on this board, for example. The mistakes are stupid! There is no reason for them, especially uniforms and such, where the correct insignia, etc. is available to anyone who bothers to look.

[David Simmons]

Everybody has a pet peeve. Mine is when military people are shown going indoors and leaving their hat on. I don't know how it is now, but when I was in the army the only people who wore a hat indoors were those who were armed.

[aerodave]

As a young page designer at a newspaper many years ago, I ran a picture of a general who gave a speech in town. Like an idiot, I flipped the picture around so it would look better on the page. Needless to say, his stripes were now on the wrong shoulder.


What stripes? (On a general?!)

[levdrakon]

Everybody has a pet peeve. Mine is when military people are shown going indoors and leaving their hat on. I don't know how it is now, but when I was in the army the only people who wore a hat indoors were those who were armed.

Nothing substantive to add, but my pet peeve in movies & TV is when the superior always feels the need to say "that's an order." God, that bugs me. One of the first things I learned in bootcamp is when a superior anybody directs you to do something, it's an order. Always. You don't say "that's an order," because everything that comes out of your mouth should be taken as an order.

[Rube E. Tewesday]

Nothing substantive to add, but my pet peeve in movies & TV is when the superior always feels the need to say "that's an order." God, that bugs me. One of the first things I learned in bootcamp is when a superior anybody directs you to do something, it's an order. Always. You don't say "that's an order," because everything that comes out of your mouth should be taken as an order.

How do you feel about the back-talk from a subordinate that always leads to the "That's an order" bit?

[David Simmons]

How do you feel about the back-talk from a subordinate that always leads to the "That's an order" bit?

One of the false notes in Saving Private Ryan was the rescue squad, commanded by a Captain, walking down a road with one guy openly arguing about the merits of the mission.

[Roches]

levdrakon: That's probably because characters in military-themed movies talk a lot more informally (I think) with superiors than they would in real life. They're characters, and screenwriters have to make them seem interesting by having them talk about the things that would ordinarily make someone like them or feel like they knew them. Also, since 'That's an order!' will almost always result in someone's failure to follow that order, it has to be made clear that the order given was an order, and that the person refusing to do it is being insubordinate.

Anyone who has technical knowledge about any field will find faults in movies, as several others have said. But you'd think they'd get it right in areas where a lot of people have some knowledge. Most people know, for example, what a computer interface looks like, that dial-up Internet connections take some time to connect and are slow to download, that you don't have to type constantly just to copy a file, and so on.

Similarly, anyone who's been in the military would know what the uniforms should look like, and there are a lot of people who have some knowledge about military hardware. I can identify planes, and I notice when the aggressors are F-4s or F-5s. (Strangely, WWII movies get this right a lot more often. It must be easier to rent a Bf 109 than a MiG-21.) But this is acceptable -- I don't expect that filmmakers would be able to get a foreign aircraft and someone able to fly it according to a script. There are people who can identify guns, and they know how many bullets each gun can fire before being reloaded. Movies, of course, never get this right. And since so many movies have guns, or use the 'how many bullets do I have left' plot device, you'd really think they could do some research.

[Balthisar]

I'm prior service (Army), and I don't notice the mistakes in many movies. I don't really go looking for them, because I don't really care that much (I'm trying to represent myself as one of the great, unwashed masses, despite knowing what's "right"). Obviously gross errors stand out and screw up the whole suspension of disbelief thing, but for the most part military flicks are pretty good.

For example, I liked Courage Under Fire, and didn't worry about the little details, or even the big ones -- the story was enough.

I really, really liked Renaissance Man, and although I didn't pay attention to the uniforms (they were usually in their T's), I really like all of the details in the barracks, like authentic wall lockers, and how the laundry bags were tied to the bunks. Never mind that "Ft. Mclane" is really called Selfridge and is an ANG base, and that there's no basic training of troops anywhere in Michigan, and I've never seen civilians eating in the dining facilities.

[Balthisar]

levdrakon: That's probably because characters in military-themed movies talk a lot more informally (I think) with superiors than they would in real life.

Oooh, I meant to add that it depends on the superior and type of unit, and the context of the situation. I imagine maybe grunts (tank drivers and infantry?) would be different, but I was always in air traffic control units. Everyone was pretty much on a first-name basis among NCO's and junior enlisted, and sometimes with the officers in the proper context. Keeping "proper context" in mind, it didn't hurt discipline at all, and being mostly ATC's, did a lot for morale. I'm talking on the company level, of course.

[Mk VII]

movie sets are replete with people who basically know jack about their supposed area of expertise, but make a living out of knowing a little more than anyone else. Of course they may know a little about a lot of areas whereas you know a lot about one area. As one fellow I know who deals in collectible military uniforms and plays military types occasionally on screen says, "I can do this because I've been doing it for years. Ask me to do something else and I couldn't do it" (he appears in 'Michael Collins' and 'Saving Private Ryan'). Of course even the man who knows what's what gets overuled sometimes. I recall another fellow who addressed a seminar on historical re-enactment telling us of his experiences on film sets arguing with directors "you are the military advisor and you have Advised Me. Now we are going to do it my way." Of some productions he could say, "if you thought it was poor, you should have seen the script BEFORE I got to voice my views on it". Wardrobe masters are given a budget, which is always less then they would like, and have to achieve miracles on that budget, while the director is chopping and changing his mind about what they are going to shoot tomorrow. Sometimes it's surprising the end result doesn't look worse.

[Drum God]

Any of you seen that movie on late-night cable (no, not that kind of movie :rolleyes: ) that is set aboard the US aircraft carrier "USS Okla". For you military types, it must drive you bonkers. First, they obviously changed the name of the ship after production started. Many of the characters are wearing caps that say "USS Oklahoma BB-37" on them, but the "homa" has been covered up. Then, there's the "BB", which is a battleship, not a carrier. And the USS Oklahoma was a WW2 battle ship (BB-37) sunk at Pearl Harbor. I don't believe there are any carriers named for states. The USS Oklahoma City (SSN-723) is a submarine. Dialog in the movie was even changed during looping. The actors clearly say "Oklahoma", but the sound says Okla. If they were that sloppy on major plot points, I can only imagine how terrible the rest of the show was. I can't even remember the name of the movie.

Oh, the humanity.

[aruvqan]

ROTFLMAO

I *hate* the Sheen movie US Navy Seals...

I lived with a seal duty stationed in Virginia Beach, and i *know* the locations they shot it...and where the locations were *supposed* to be. And that wedding! *NO* military fiancee is going to let the hubby get away without the fast form of a wedding, expecially when the wedding is *on* base, by a navy chaplain and they have 30 minutes to get to a location that happens to be less than a quarter mile from the chapel.

I am forced to *suspend reality* in most movies about the military, or in many where there are subjects I actually know something about. Current boyfriend was a helo pilot for 9 years, and you should have heard him laughing when we watched 'Die Another Day' when they dropped the helo out the back of the plane, and they cold started it before it made like a lawn dart....

[JRDelirious]

(Strangely, WWII movies get this right a lot more often. It must be easier to rent a Bf 109 than a MiG-21.) .

Heh... that was a kinda fortunate side-effect of Spain in the 40s having an entire Air Force outfitted with Luftwaffe gear. So quite a few survived. Then again there was many a WW2 flick where Texan trainers were used in place of enemy planes for close-up or ground work.

[Sami41]

JMan, I feel your pain. . . or similar pain, anyway.

I spent 2 years in NMSU's Pride band, a VERY GOOD band. Marching band members work their butts off. The talent and teamwork involved are no less than those on the football or basketball teams. Just as many hours of practice as a group--plus learning the music on their own time. But in the movies, the band is always depicted as the biggest bunch of idiots ever, or (maybe worse) comic relief.
I was pretty excited when I first saw the trailers for Drumline. Finally, a movie where the band members are the protaginists, so I thought. Big red x. The drumming was good, the visuals we're great, but they still made the rest of the band look like shit, IMO. My highschool band had better fundamentals (uniform horn angles, marching in a straight line, etc) than the band they used in this movie. The sad thing is, I'd bet that for a rather small sum in the way of donation to a music program they could have gotten any college band in the country to be 'extras.'
Oh yeah, the plot was cheese as well.

[xizor]

Never mind that "Ft. Mclane" is really called Selfridge and is an ANG base, and that there's no basic training of troops anywhere in Michigan, and I've never seen civilians eating in the dining facilities.

I just had to say that back in 1985, I ate at a dining facility at Selfridge as a civilian every meal for about a week . And there were other civilians in there as well, including High School students.

[psiekier]

I *hate* the Sheen movie US Navy Seals...
Be mindful, aruvqan.

The Charlie Sheen movie you are undoubtedly referring to is Navy SEALs (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0100232/), which also stars Michael "Hicks" Biehn and Bill "Hudson" Paxton (that's like what, half the cast of Aliens?*). We all loved it back in the day and still quote from it on occasion.

It must never be confused with US SEALs (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0195366/) or its God-awful straight-to-video sequel (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0283652/), which consistently rate at the bottom for very good reasons.

* - I guess we know what roles Biehn is cut out for. He plays a Navy SEAL in The Rock, Navy SEALs and The Abyss; plus a Colonial Marine in Aliens and a "time traveling soldier from the future" in The Terminator.

[Bryan Ekers]

In his autobiography, Kirk Douglas describes a bit of stealth involved in filming a scene for Seven Days in May (http://imdb.com/title/tt0058576/) (1964). The story, about a bunch of military generals plotting a coup to seize the American government, required an establishing shot outside the Pentagon, but filming permission was refused. Douglas simply walked through one of the entrances in his colonel costume while being secretly filmed from a distance, was saluted by a sentry, returned the salute, waited inside for a few moments, then walked out and was saluted again. Strictly speaking, he'd committed a felony, but he got his two shots.

Douglas had been a navy officer during WW2, though, so I'd cut him some slack.