Veteran representation and Hollywood.

Sgt Packy Flickinger — Thu, 11 Sep 2014 23:33:25 -0400

I saw "Grudge Match" with Sylvester Stallone last week. He clearly had a large Marine EGA tattoo (fake for film) on his chest. He also played an an Army Vet in the Rambo movies.

This isn't uncommon with Hollywood. In this case however, it is widely suspected Sly was a draft dodger but this is as closely guarded as Obama's college transcripts.

Does it rub anybody else wrong that some glorify themselves routinely as veterans in movies who didn't serve in real life. Or should I say refused to serve.
Men like John Wayne were actually deffered because their PR in movies did more good than them serving, so I've read.

Response by Cpl David Schaffer made Sep 17 at 2014 2:35 PM

Cpl David Schaffer — Wed, 17 Sep 2014 14:35:47 -0400

I have read that he suffer's from Bells Palsy, if this is the case he may have been ineligible for the draft as it is considered a disability. As we know in a time of war it can be easy to get a waiver if he so desired.

If these Hollywood elites bring honor to our military service members I personally do not mind, they may act like one on TV though they never served. I do have a problem if they dishonor those that served by risking their life's for them to act. I also would rather see them playing Marine than to represent false valor like some do.

Response by MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca made Sep 17 at 2014 3:48 PM

MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca — Wed, 17 Sep 2014 15:48:43 -0400

If the character the actor is portraying has some depth and dimension to them without stereotyping the American SM or Vet then IMHO, they are doing us all justice. For me, "Gettysburg" is one of the films that captures all this. The players are brought to life, not made larger than life and the actors are subdued to their historical counterparts. Don't get me wrong there's always a place and I'm always down for the "virtual magazine change" type of movies like Rambo and Missing in Action series, but you take it for the entertainment value its worth.

Response by Cpl Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 17 at 2014 4:02 PM

Cpl Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 17 Sep 2014 16:02:29 -0400

Here is a good link to Hollywood who served (not Hollywood Marines, Hollywood Actors)

http://www.imdb.com/list/ls003539523/

I do not really mind if an actor portrays military in entertainment as it is for our entertainment.

I would mind something like what Tom Cruise infamously stated, "Do you believe the situations [being in a movie and fighting a war in Afghanistan] are the same?"

Though he states he was mis-quoted and does not equate acting to combat, it is items like this that make me grimace.

IMDb: Actors who served in the U.S. military - a list by FilmzToGo

Actors whose military service didn't mirror their Hollywood careers such as Ronald Reagan, Red Buttons, Mickey Rooney, etc. I have only found two female veterans for this list. If anyone knows any others, please comment.

Response by SSG Pete Fleming made Sep 17 at 2014 4:27 PM

SSG Pete Fleming — Wed, 17 Sep 2014 16:27:28 -0400

Sgt Packy Flickinger, there are several ways to view this (without getting into the free speech debate). They are portraying a character in a film for (a) entertainment (b) money.

There are Veterans who are also actors, and with the prolonged wars there are more now than people realize. However, certain actors are big draws for the industry which producing these films.

Would is be great to have actual military veteran play the part of course. But real cowboys don't play in westerns and real aliens don't play in science fiction. They are just movies for entertainment. Some have a deeper political motivation than others.

We as Veterans view these differently than non-vets. But how do think the average attorney feels about the normal portrayal on film? Or the average construction worker... taxi driver... but more directly related would be police officers. I highly doubt Bruce Willis was a former cop, did that stop you from seeing Die Already? No. They feel as we do. They wish the positives were shown. They cringe at the negative stereotypes and appreciate the entertainment value of the overall project.

If he was a draft dodger... finding that out did it stop you from seeing his films? Jane Fonda... hated by many a Veteran is still an award winning actress... James Stewart served in WWII went on to be the Adjutant General of the California National Guard was an awarding winning actor. In film as in life we find all kinds...

Response by Sgt Carlos Marquina made Sep 17 at 2014 4:31 PM

Sgt Carlos Marquina — Wed, 17 Sep 2014 16:31:08 -0400

In way we all Marines get a bit offended at that but hey you have to look at it as hey we the United States Marine Corps are finally getting more representation in movies now that's what I love to see.

Response by SSgt Gregory Guina made Sep 17 at 2014 4:36 PM

SSgt Gregory Guina — Wed, 17 Sep 2014 16:36:48 -0400

I thought John Wayne was medically DQ'd from service

Response by CPT Kit Lancaster made Sep 17 at 2014 5:06 PM

CPT Kit Lancaster — Wed, 17 Sep 2014 17:06:41 -0400

Hollywood's job is to tell stories. Some of them are great, some are horrible. They are made for a variety of reasons. There are amazing actors out there who's work I admire. When you dig into their personal beliefs / lives, they are people I would never want to know or be around on any level personally.

It is important art and films is protect as free speech. Even if the individuals in the films are disconnected from reality. I'm more concerned when citizens and consumers are discounted from reality.

I think we live in a strange time with a population that isn't fully connected with consequences of sending our military to war. Perhaps citizens and soldiers of Rome felt the same way in the four century AD.

Response by SSG Maurice P. made Sep 17 at 2014 8:18 PM

SSG Maurice P. — Wed, 17 Sep 2014 20:18:13 -0400

JOHN WAYNE WAS TO OLD FOR WW2...BUT HE IS AND ALWAYS WILL BE SGT STRYKER U.S.M.C SANDS OF IWO JIMA

Response by SSG Maurice P. made Sep 17 at 2014 8:25 PM

SSG Maurice P. — Wed, 17 Sep 2014 20:25:45 -0400

AUDIE PURPHY WAS A GREAT ACTOR AND THE MOST DECORATED SOLDIER IN AMERICAN HISTORY...LEE MARVIN WAS A REAL BATTLE FIELD MARINE AND A GREAT ACTOR...

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 17 at 2014 8:31 PM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 17 Sep 2014 20:31:37 -0400

Sgt Packy Flickinger COL Randall C. LTC Private RallyPoint Member MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca SSG V. Michelle Woods SPC Charles Brown @CPT PFC Kenneth Koepke SFC James Sczymanski - I believe that if you advocate against the military and in particular the fighting man, then you have betrayed the veteran and our country. When Tom Hanks pay homage to the vets and the Wahlbergs honest and humble portrayal of veterans as well, then no one can really object.

I don't remember if many remember Jon Voight's depiction of a disabled Vietnam Veteran and the politics of the VA and how vets were treated there. Jon is an honest supporter of our troops and anyone has spent a long PCS overseas knows the value of support from Hollywood. Tom Clancy, John Wayne, Lou Diamond Philipps and a few others represented us nicely.

So yeah the imbeciles like Cruise and Hanoi Jane are regrettable but just as when 50pesos compared what he did to your soldiers in battle is a disgrace.

Response by Cpl Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 17 at 2014 9:31 PM

Cpl Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 17 Sep 2014 21:31:07 -0400

In my honest opinion, I don't believe anyone who hasn't served honorably should represent the military on the silver screen. It ain't gonna' happen, but one can hope. Seeing some Hollywood freak portray someone in the military when they have questionable morals or have attacked the military makes my blood boil.

Response by LCpl James Craft made Sep 17 at 2014 10:27 PM

LCpl James Craft — Wed, 17 Sep 2014 22:27:46 -0400

I agree 100% if someone gave Sly a real weapon with live rounds and didn't direct him he would probably shoot himself.

Response by Lt Col Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 17 at 2014 11:42 PM

Lt Col Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 17 Sep 2014 23:42:56 -0400

I was a military tech advisor on a film. It is usually not the actor doing it at all. It is the director who makes the call on what costume the actors will be in. A tattoo would be considered a costume item. I suppose one needs to seperate the actor from the character.

However, having said that, I do have a hard time taking a character serious if the actor has an anti military sentiment and is playing the part of a serious military role. I put at fault the directors for not getting a tech advisor for a film to make the film at least somewhat accurate. I always had an issue with Steven Segall flicks walking around in Navy Officer Whites wearing a flippen pony tail.

Response by SPC Humberto Mendoza made Sep 19 at 2014 8:24 PM

SPC Humberto Mendoza — Fri, 19 Sep 2014 20:24:39 -0400

a movie is just that a movie, fiction, a figment of someone's imagination. that should never be taken the wrong. That is everyone's given right, their imagination. Unfortunately, there are things that we don't like, so we just avoid it unless it is creating someone true harm. till then ignore it.
I believe the wrong comes when Joe Shmoe Someone puts on any part of a uniform without having earned it disgraces it as just another part of clothing walking down the street, thats BS.
As far as their history it happened get over it. we moved forward and have no need to look back at that as it really doesn't get anything productive in return.

Response by LCpl Tim Marshall made Sep 20 at 2014 2:40 PM

LCpl Tim Marshall — Sat, 20 Sep 2014 14:40:40 -0400

I find actors that oppose the rights provided by the Constitution and protected by we who served, yet made millions producing films depicting and at times glorifying horrific violence, reprehensible. The ultimate hypocrites.

Response by PO2 Rocky Kleeger made Sep 20 at 2014 3:14 PM

PO2 Rocky Kleeger — Sat, 20 Sep 2014 15:14:06 -0400

I don't go to movies to critique stuff like that, I go to movies to be entertained. I know that Hollywood won't allow uniforms to be worn 100% correctly (in fact, a game I play with other veterans is to spot the discrepancies), and it could be as small as the ribbons being in the wrong order.

That being said...what really pisses me off is the complete disrespecting of our uniforms - any branch - such as what's pictured here

Response by SFC Joseph Bosley made Sep 20 at 2014 6:15 PM

SFC Joseph Bosley — Sat, 20 Sep 2014 18:15:58 -0400

An actoral portrayal of a combat hero is only for entertainment, unless we are tlaking about Audy Murphy, who won the MOH among other awards to become the most highly decorated servicemember of World War II then went on to Hollywood to play him self in "To Hell and Back" in 1955. John Wayne is another interesting case. He was accepted to the US Naval Academy in C. 1925 as an alternate, ending up going to USC in 1927 on a football scholarship. His sholder injury there prevented his admittance into the military during World War II , along with injuries sustained from doing his own stunts and ear issues. There is lots of open discussion about Wayne's selective service classification changes during the 1940s. Overall because of Wayne entire situation it doesnt bother me at all that he has played in some of the best war movies ever made. Stallone on the other hand, is not only a bad actor, but should have his citizenship revoked for fleeing the country for the sole purpose of avoiding the draft. His portrayal of any service member is a slap in the face to every veteran.

Response by PO3 Bruce Robinson made Sep 20 at 2014 6:38 PM

PO3 Bruce Robinson — Sat, 20 Sep 2014 18:38:52 -0400

John Wayne had a severe hip injury and couldn't pass the physical

Response by PO3 Sherry Thornburg made Sep 20 at 2014 9:06 PM

PO3 Sherry Thornburg — Sat, 20 Sep 2014 21:06:58 -0400

Hollywood doesn't look at actors that critically. They pick for looks not background. Stallone had a look to do a good Rambo. Which he did. The main thing is the acting (pretending to be something you are not). He is good at that.

I heard the same thing about John Wayne. They put him to work doing war movies and selling war bonds. My grandfather wasn't allowed to join either. He was too important at Hughes Tools doing quality control. He challenged it twice, but was told no both times.

Response by SGT Robert Hawks made Sep 20 at 2014 11:41 PM

SGT Robert Hawks — Sat, 20 Sep 2014 23:41:44 -0400

America's entry into World War II resulted in a deluge of support for the war effort from all sectors of society, and Hollywood was no exception. Wayne was exempted from service due to his age (34 at the time of Pearl Harbor) and family status, classified as 3-A (family deferment). He repeatedly wrote John Ford saying he wanted to enlist, on one occasion inquiring whether he could get into Ford's military unit, but consistently kept postponing it until after "he finished just one or two pictures".[29] Wayne did not attempt to prevent his reclassification as 1-A (draft eligible), but Republic Studios was emphatically resistant to losing him; Herbert J. Yates, President of Republic, threatened Wayne with a lawsuit if he walked away from his contract[30] and Republic Pictures intervened in the Selective Service process, requesting Wayne's further deferment.[31]

Wayne toured U.S. bases and hospitals in the South Pacific for three months in 1943 and 1944.[32] By many accounts, Wayne's failure to serve in the military was the most painful experience of his life.[33] His widow later suggested that his patriotism in later decades sprang from guilt, writing: "He would become a 'superpatriot' for the rest of his life trying to atone for staying home."[34]

U.S. National Archives records indicate that Wayne had, in fact, made an application [35] to serve in the O.S.S., today's equivalent of the C.I.A., and had been accepted within the U.S. Army's allotted billet to the O.S.S. William Donovan, O.S.S. Commander, wrote Wayne a letter informing him of his acceptance in to the Field Photographic Unit, but the letter went to his estranged wife Josephine's home. She never told him about it.[36]

As far as it bothering me they are actors they are paid to act so if their part requires they play a veteran so be it I won't be upset unless they use their status to bring disgrace to veterans.

Response by CDR Christopher Mason made Sep 21 at 2014 12:15 AM

CDR Christopher Mason — Sun, 21 Sep 2014 00:15:31 -0400

The issue is now with the draft gone, there will be fewer Hollywood types or other types that have service. Remember, the war-mongering Bush administration has several draft key figures who avoided service through exemption such as Dick Cheney and Karl Rove

Response by Sgt Ryan Blankenship made Sep 21 at 2014 8:01 PM

Sgt Ryan Blankenship — Sun, 21 Sep 2014 20:01:03 -0400

My only issue would be with People such as Tom Cruise portraying a Military Person, or former Military Person. Its the ones that run their mouth, then turn around and portray the exact people they were speaking against. But as far as just anyone who supports our troops, I don't mind at all. its an honor

Response by SGT Sterling Reece made Sep 21 at 2014 9:14 PM

SGT Sterling Reece — Sun, 21 Sep 2014 21:14:15 -0400

I don't, because I support a person's freedom to choose to enlist or not. The draft itself was unjust, and as such dodging it does not constitute an immoral act.

As far as serving, lots of people serve. They don't all have to put on a uniform. Anyone who works hard, innovates, accumulates capital, is a net gain and is thus serving.

And I take those roles, to the extent that they at least attempt to be honest portrayals, as an homage.

Response by SFC Mark Merino made Sep 22 at 2014 9:07 AM

SFC Mark Merino — Mon, 22 Sep 2014 09:07:14 -0400

All that concerns me Sgt Packy Flickinger is who is going to get the honor of playing me on the silver screen. Will it be Brad Pitt, George Clooney, or one of the other gorgeous people? I'm leaning towards Sloth from "The Goonies" personally. "Sloth loves Chunk."

Response by CPT Justin Cawthon made Sep 22 at 2014 3:15 PM

CPT Justin Cawthon — Mon, 22 Sep 2014 15:15:49 -0400

Doesn't bother me. It is fake and meant to entertain. They do not represent themselves as real, and we know it is not real, so no harm, no foul.

If it is too over the top, I just do not go, and give no thought to it.

sure, it annoys me when candy asses like Clooney, Damon, and Pitt play men they have no business trying to portray.
Nevertheless, I defend the constitution, and that is a form of speech, albeit a cheap and corny form.
I just don't waste my time and money, I would rather dedicate my efforts to playing guitar, learning a program or a language, or anything else to exercise my dense but weak mind!

Stallone's movies are corny but fun.

Response by SSgt Brendan Doyle made Sep 23 at 2014 2:42 PM

SSgt Brendan Doyle — Tue, 23 Sep 2014 14:42:44 -0400

And to be fair John Wayne attempted to enlist but was rejected for medical reasons

Response by Sgt Matthew Lichenstein made Sep 23 at 2014 3:02 PM

Sgt Matthew Lichenstein — Tue, 23 Sep 2014 15:02:35 -0400

John Wayne was exempted from service due to his age (34 at the time of Pearl Harbor) and family status, classified as 3-A (family deferment). He repeatedly wrote John Ford saying he wanted to enlist, on one occasion inquiring whether he could get into Ford's military unit, but consistently kept postponing it until after "he finished just one or two pictures".[29] Wayne did not attempt to prevent his reclassification as 1-A (draft eligible), but Republic Studios was emphatically resistant to losing him; Herbert J. Yates, President of Republic, threatened Wayne with a lawsuit if he walked away from his contract[30] and Republic Pictures intervened in the Selective Service process, requesting Wayne's further deferment.[31]

Wayne toured U.S. bases and hospitals in the South Pacific for three months in 1943 and 1944.[32] By many accounts, Wayne's failure to serve in the military was the most painful experience of his life.[33] His widow later suggested that his patriotism in later decades sprang from guilt, writing: "He would become a 'superpatriot' for the rest of his life trying to atone for staying home."[34]

U.S. National Archives records indicate that Wayne had, in fact, made an application [35] to serve in the O.S.S., today's equivalent of the C.I.A., and had been accepted within the U.S. Army's allotted billet to the O.S.S. William Donovan, O.S.S. Commander, wrote Wayne a letter informing him of his acceptance in to the Field Photographic Unit, but the letter went to his estranged wife Josephine's home. She never told him about it.[36]
Wikipedia

Response by SPC Kaye Brundage made Oct 1 at 2015 5:44 PM

SPC Kaye Brundage — Thu, 01 Oct 2015 17:44:05 -0400

He has paralysis due to issues at birth. That would be reason enough for him not to serve. He may have been turned down due to that. you can't serve if you don't pass the physical. Many small things can be the reason(s) for being denied.