United States Propaganda Films of the 1980s

 By David Starr

 

The 1980s unfortunately was the decade of Reagan. His legacy is filled with a series of policy debacles.  Quoting Peter Dreier in The Nation, who teaches politics:

 

“During his two terms in the White House (1981–89), Reagan presided over a widening gap between the rich and everyone else, declining wages and living standards for working families, an assault on labor unions as a vehicle to lift Americans into the middle class, a dramatic increase in poverty and homelessness, and the consolidation and deregulation of the financial industry that led to the mortgage meltdown, foreclosure epidemic and lingering recession. Reagan is often lauded as “the great communicator,” but what he often communicated were lies and distortions.”

 

Reagan, a grade B actor, nevertheless played an effective role as president as evidenced by his popularity within the U.S.; but it was based on feeding the ignorance of the masses. One way of doing this was the role the film industry played, namely, putting out films that amounted to propaganda. 

 

During the 1980s, soft power was used by the Pentagon and Hollywood to make films attractive. In an essay written by Lejla Dautbasic, from the International Burch University located in Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina–and originally published in Multidisciplinary Academic Publishing – soft power is described as “imposing influence on the other states, through different canals like movies, student exchanges, media, etc.” Dautbasic writes that soft power was (is) a way for the USA to spread its “political and ideological influence.” This happened especially during the Cold War.

 

Soft power employed the 1980s pop culture, with Hollywood cranking out “USA-themed big-grossing movies.” One of those movies was Rocky IV. It was an appeal to USA patriotism, the courage to change, and depicting the USSR as the evil empire, to use a Reagan cliché. The movie debuted in 1985, the year the USSR started to undergo major changes due to Mikhail Gorbachev’s reforms. 

 

While the first Rocky movie put out an important message, based on underdog Chuck Wepner fighting Muhammad Ali, and where Wepner was called “the great, white hope,” Rocky IV was more ultranationalist. Rocky, symbolizing the “good” USA, went up against the Russian boxer, Drago, who symbolized the “evil” USSR. Dautbasic writes that Rocky “reminds us of the timeless story of an ordinary man who reaches the top in sweat, raising the American flag with bloody fists.” Meanwhile, Drago is “a government project by the USSR and a lot of money has been invested in him, in his training ground and equipment.”

 

Drago is a one-dimensional caricature while Rocky is explored more in depth as a humble individual “who fought to the top” of his profession. Dautbasic makes a point the following way: “In Rocky IV, USSR and Drago are shown as the bad guys and the movie is a perfect example of anti-Soviet propaganda.” But the movie “portrays US nationalism and US superiority over USSR, and the fact that it was one of the most popular movies of the time, indicates its power and acceptance to the public.” While the film was popular in the U.S., it remains to be seen if it was popular worldwide.

 

A review of Rocky IV was written by Mark Engler, who has a site called DemocracyUprising. Engler makes a contrast between the first Rocky movie, where Rocky Balboa who is portrayed as a humble underdog getting a chance to fight the formidable Apollo Creed, and losing, with Rocky IV, which still maintains Rocky’s humbleness but with a story line that shows the fight against Drago as being a “good” vs “evil” contest. Engler writes, that “Stallone represents big ‘A’ America and takes on the USSR’s top prizefighter. In this new nationalist framework, losing is simply not an option.”

 

Engler calls Rocky IV “shameless” but “very entertaining.” Engler adds that “The problem here is that the vision of a powerful, technologically Soviet state has not aged well. In the 1980s, perpetuating this vision was useful for those who used a hotly contested arms race to justify vast escalations in military spending.” Even with the demise of the USSR, the U.S. has continued to excessively fund the military, now with the actual total being almost $1 trillion. It’s gone well beyond self-defense.

 

Rambo III is also reviewed by Engler. He starts off by writing, “The patriotic spirit of Stallone’s action hero peaked in the last movie of the series.” In the first Rambo film, the action hero is rebelling against the military establishment as well as a redneck town. Rambo III makes him out as a super patriot. 

 

Rambo, “the reluctant ex-Green Beret, acting on behalf of the U.S. government, joins forces with native freedom fighters against the Russians in Afghanistan.” At first, Rambo is hesitant, wanting to retire in a “mountaintop monastery.” But, “after Rambo’s beloved Colonel Trautman is captured by the commies, the veteran commando goes back into action.

 

“Once in Afghanistan, Rambo is convinced by the mujahideen that their battle is righteous. And it is at this point that one sees how the passing years have been unkind to Stallone’s defense of Reaganite militarism. The fact that Osama bin Laden was among the warriors whose insurgency was supported by the CIA only proves the old maxim that one Republican President’s freedom fighter is another’s terrorist.” It was years later that bin laden became known as an instigator of the 9/11 attacks. Blowback.

 

There was a memorable scene of Rambo fighting a Soviet soldier. The latter, perplexed by Rambo’s machoism, asks, “Who are you?” Rambo replies, “I’m your worst nightmare.” This only adds to the anti-Soviet propaganda.

 

Engler had a few words for another film: Red Dawn.  The “evil-doers” this time are the USSR and Cuba. In its “version of World War III it’s up to a rag-tag bunch of Colorado high school students to form a hit-and-run strike force and take their country back. The guerillas are the heroes. The invading troops are the enemies. The students name their platoon after their high school football team, the Wolverines.”

 

Engler writes, “it occurred to me that returning to those [‘80s films] and looking from a distance at the brand of hyper-patriotism promoted in the 1980s might prove useful for those challenging militaristic visions of national purpose. And it would be notably uncomfortable for promoters of a ‘New American Century.’”

 

Writer and author David Sirota wrote a piece deservedly titled “How the ‘80s programmed us for war.” In it he asserts, “Reaganism abetted this dawn of the ‘military-entertainment complex,’ as Wired magazine called it. The administration’s hawkishness provided the political rationale for parental complicity, and the White House’s deregulatory agenda helped television become the most influential – and most invasive – marketer of kids’ products, more and more of which were violent and military-themed.”

 

Sirota asks, “…can you really argue that it’s just happenstance that the Pentagon today airs recruitment ads in movie theaters [and] portray soldiers as ‘RoboCops’…”? 

 

And Sirota writes about Red Dawn: those highschoolers who “go rogue by mounting a preposterous guerilla resistance against a massive Soviet assault on the American homeland. The film starts out with the bedrock provisos of militarist paranoia, including key pillars of eighties Vietnam-related revision.” Sirota lists these pillars: Anti-gun control extremism, retaliation on countries that defeat the United States, backstabbing politicians, and the U.S. as embattled underdog.

 

The young highschoolers flee into the woods for some, as Sirota put it, “good old-fashioned Unabomber-like survivalism.” They then encounter a fallen U.S. pilot who expresses a little militarist paranoia:

 

The commies are among us. “The first wave of the attack came in disguise as commercial charter flights [just like the 9/11 attacks that happened years later].”

 

A militarized southern border, something the right-wing would love. “Infiltrators came up illegally from Mexico, Cubans mostly.”

 

Years earlier before Red Dawn was released, Reagan asserted that the Soviets were a threat to invade, establishing a “beachhead” in Nicaragua, that would supposedly spread north to the U.S. Another case of militarist paranoia.

 

Writing for Williams College’s “The Prolongation of Work,” RJ Shamberger explores propaganda in the film industry. Shamberger starts off by writing, 

 

“The United States promises its people many freedoms and presents itself as the land of opportunity where anything is achievable; however, the United States portrays itself as far greater than it is through constant propaganda. The propaganda is everywhere. In our television advertisements. In our history textbooks. In the words of our politicians. And all forms of our entertainment. The United States is not perfect, yet the movie industry often misrepresents the hardships and inequality in the country.”

 

One film that reflects his introductory statements is called The Pursuit of Happyness. Set in the 1980s, Shamberger calls it a “miraculous rag-to-riches story” where the main character named Chris Gardner Sr. goes from a destitute life to becoming a millionaire. Experiencing the worst of times, Gardner’s wife leaves him as he loses his home. Gardner is left with his son, Chris Gardner Jr., who he takes care of.

 

Shamberger writes that Gardner still “holds on to his hope, and the American Dream beautifully awards his efforts with riches through his hard work and perseverance.” Gardner invests his savings into a company that produces bone density scanners. This leads to his financial downfall where the scanners become more of a burden than an asset. 

 

Implying that the American Dream is an illusion, at least for Gardner, Shamberger writes, “The film carefully detracts from Gardner’s actions to continually remind the viewers of the magical promises that the American Dream promises. The film’s opening image is a glimpse of the Declaration of Independence, and the title pays homage to the ‘life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness’ quotation.

 

“Further resembling a perfect piece of propaganda, the movie neglects telling its audience that Gardner’s actions are miraculous as it never addresses the social injustices he faces or reasons to his severe poverty. Through consistently conveying the idea of social mobility being a direct result of hard work, the film avoids challenging the words of the Founding Fathers of the reason behind Thomas Jefferson’s specific wording as the title suggests.”

 

Shamberger makes a point that Gardner’s rise and fall occurred during the Reagan era. And that the Pursuit of Happyness conveys a sort of U.S. utopia while not directly addressing the problems of racial inequality and social mobility.

 

The Reagan era was very influential in changing attitudes in U.S. society. And films played an important part of that conditioning. In turn, the Reagan era was a right-wing utopia, defying reality. 

 

It wound up being an illusion, and a dangerous one. Nowadays this is still proven by the current rulers of the U.S., e.g., a rejection of the accusation that Israel has committed attempted genocide against Palestinians, and still clinging on to an imperial foreign policy. And Hollywood, with approval from the Pentagon, continues to put out propaganda.