ByteVibes

At first glance, it looks like just another disposable summer movie, this time about battling robots from outer space. But Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen is also quite possibly the most militarised film ever made. Even more than its predecessor, it crams in an exhausting amount of military hardware: jet fighters, transport planes, unmanned spy planes, helicopters, tanks, submarines, hovercrafts, aircraft carriers, you name it. And if you can't name it, an actor will usually yell something helpful like: "They're bringing in the C-17s!"

In addition, many of the characters in the movie are military personnel, and genuine US troops were used as extras. Large chunks of it were shot at US airbases, too. Holloman, in New Mexico, stands in for Diego Garcia, while the nearby White Sands missile range doubles for Egypt in the movie's comically destructive finale. It was generally assumed that the Transformers films were toy adverts disguised as event movies – but, on the strength of Revenge of the Fallen, a new question arises, one with much more sinister connotations in a movie directed at kids: are they really selling the mighty US military?

By reputation, Hollywood is a town of lily-livered liberals. Military people rarely come off well in the movies: they are usually characterised as disciplinarian dads, meat-headed bullies, inflexible authoritarians or, in the case of American Beauty, self-hating, closeted gay Nazis. But there's a contingent of film-makers who seem to get on just fine with the troops, and chief among them are Michael Bay and producer Jerry Bruckheimer. Not only did Bay direct both Transformers movies, but also such war-tastic blockbusters as Pearl Harbor and Armageddon, each made with heavy military cooperation; Pearl Harbor even held its premiere on a US aircraft carrier. Both were produced by Bruckheimer, who has also brought the world military-themed movies such as Crimson Tide, Black Hawk Down and the daddy of the genre, Top Gun.

It's not difficult to see what both sides get out of it. The use of official hardware gives a movie such as Revenge of the Fallen a much-needed veneer of credibility: without the military, it's just a film about robots fighting. And it saved the film-makers millions of dollars in props, locations and special effects. Meanwhile, the military gets to show off its latest equipment to millions of people, and depict its personnel in the best possible light.

"Yes, we have a good relationship," says Philip Strub, director of entertainment media at the US department of defence, who has worked with Bay since Armageddon. Bay is always keen to include the military's latest equipment, says Strub: "We might say, 'Hey, you've never shown an X, Y or a Z.' We'll send them information, talk about its role. Or they'll come back to us and say, 'We'd like to have a C-17. Or what about an aircraft carrier and some F-18s?'"

Bay and Bruckheimer aren't the only military-minded film-makers in Hollywood, though. The first Oscar-winning picture, Wings, from 1927, was a first world war movie made with support from the US air force, and they have been working together ever since, in war epics such as Patton, The Green Berets and From Here to Eternity.

In theory, any US film-maker can make use of the military's hardware, personnel and property. It all belongs to the taxpayer, after all. As well as Strub's office in the Pentagon, each of the US's armed forces has its own public affairs department in LA to work with film-makers. "The rule of thumb for us is that there's no additional cost to the US government," says Strub. "So if they're filming typical flight operations on an aircraft carrier, we wouldn't charge. But if you wanted to control the aircraft, then we would charge exactly what it costs the squadron." These costs vary: from $1,000 an hour for a tank, to more than $25,000 for an F-15 jet fighter.

However, you get all this on the military's terms. The script must be submitted for approval, a military consultant will be on hand during the shoot, and the finished product has to be screened for Pentagon chiefs before its release. And if the military doesn't like the way it is portrayed in the script, it won't help you until you make the changes it recommends. "Our desire is that the military are portrayed as good people trying to do the right thing the right way," says Strub. "That's probably our single most important imperative. We want the equipment to be operated in a way that's more or less the way it would be; and for servicemen to act towards each other and towards others as they would in real life."

In his 2004 book Operation Hollywood, David Robb paints a darker picture. Robb documents the discussions between the two sides on many movies since the second world war. What emerges is a startling picture of an entertainment landscape shaped by the Pentagon. Sometimes the changes are laughable. In the James Bond movie GoldenEye, the Pentagon demanded the nationality of an incompetent US admiral be changed if the producers wanted US helicopters for the finale. He became Canadian.

Sometimes the changes are more sinister. In the Cuban missile crisis drama Thirteen Days, the Pentagon objected to the way generals were shown to be in favour of invading Cuba at the time, even though this was based on tapes of discussions within the White House. The military described Thirteen Days's portrayal of the generals as "negative" and "inauthentic". It sought to alter the scenes, but producer and star Kevin Costner refused, and went ahead without their support.

"The military is part of the US government," says Robb now. "In America we have the First Amendment, which prohibits government from favouring speech it likes, and not favouring speech it doesn't like. You can't reward somebody who makes a movie saying how great the American government is – and deny the same break to somebody criticising it." By taking the military's assistance, he says, an artist's vision is inevitably corrupted. "The military are not film-makers. They're good at making war, and making weapons, but they're not good at making movies. They don't have a sense of humour and they don't really even have a sense of their own history."

Despite the extra cost and hardship, many of the best Hollywood war movies have been made without the forces: Apocalypse Now, Platoon, MASH, Catch-22, Full Metal Jacket, Dr Strangelove, Three Kings. And when it comes to the recent anti-Iraq/Bush war movies such as Redacted, Rendition, Battle for Haditha, Stop Loss, In the Valley of Elah, or HBO's Generation Kill, the film-makers didn't even bother to ask the US military for support, knowing full well how they operate. Even Bay and Bruckheimer have managed to make the odd movie without Pentagon help, such as 1996's The Rock, in which renegade US marines hold the country to ransom and kill Navy SEALs – a definite deal-breaker.

But the more commercially minded film-makers have learned how to get the goods without coming close to upsetting the top brass, through a process that could be described as self-censorship. Transformers is the perfect example. First, it is not a war movie but a sci-fi movie. Its fantastical, apolitical storyline neatly sidesteps issues of historical accuracy or military competence. As Strub puts it: "Since we don't have too many existing war plans for fighting Decepticons, and allying with Autobots, there's an enormous amount of flexibility in terms of artistic licence."

Secondly, and more worryingly, Transformers is aimed at children. Its target audience might well come to associate the military and warfare solely with exciting action, giddying technology, civic duty and untarnished heroism – and perhaps one day sign up themselves. The military don't like to talk about the recruiting value of movies these days, but they are clearly mindful of the Top Gun effect. It seems impossible to imagine now, especially since Quentin Tarantino's "Top Gun is the gayest movie ever" analysis, but in 1986, the sight of Tom Cruise, Val Kilmer and co in white uniforms and aviator shades standing in front of throbbing jet fighters sent lots of America's young men straight to the nearest recruiting office. They usually didn't have to go far – the Navy installed special recruiting booths in cinema lobbies.

That strategy would never work today. Post 9/11, the appetite of US film-goers for patriotic entertainment might be undiminished, but recruitment rates are low. And they haven't been helped by real-life events such as Abu Ghraib, friendly fire incidents, extraordinary rendition, atrocities committed by troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, not to mention friends and family killed or maimed in the US's current conflicts. So sci-fi movies aimed at younger audiences seem to be a new direction for military recruitment. In the last few years, the Pentagon has helped with Spielberg's War of the Worlds, The Day the Earth Stood Still and Iron Man. Coming soon are Iron Man 2 and GI Joe (another toy being turned into a movie). Think it's all just brainless nonsense and nothing to worry about? Well, bear in mind that Transformers broke box-office records.

ncG1vNJzZmivp6x7tbTEoKyaqpSerq96wqikaJ6Zobpwfo9pcGiipaF8cYKOrqpmpZmhtrWt0bJkoaecoca4u86d