There is a theology in the way the American flag flutters in slow motion across the screen. It is not mere nationalism. It is not even belief. It is liturgy. The modern cathedral is the multiplex, the television, the Netflix interface glowing like a stained-glass window lit from within. The congregants watch in silence as a new gospel is proclaimed: the gospel of firepower, of sacrifice, of righteousness in camouflage.
US military cinema is not a genre; it is a ritualized epistemology, a mode of revelation. From Top Gun to American Sniper, from Black Hawk Down to Lone Survivor, the military film is not primarily about war, but about the mythos of war—its sanctification, its aestheticization, its theological justification. It is theodicy rendered in Dolby surround.
The central problem of theodicy, as Leibniz and Dostoevsky knew, is the reconciliation of suffering with meaning. US military cinema, too, attempts the same: to turn the trauma of war into spectacle, into redemption. It is the alchemical transmutation of atrocity into glory. Like Augustine's felix culpa—the fortunate fall—these films render violence as necessity, death as sanctified, sacrifice as regenerative.
We must examine this not as entertainment, but as theology. As ideology. As propaganda. Jacques Ellul, in his seminal work Propaganda: The Formation of Men's Attitudes, warned that propaganda is most effective not when it lies, but when it sacralizes. The military film does not deceive so much as it baptizes.
These films do not depict reality; they curate myth. They do not question empire; they domesticate it. Jean Baudrillard famously argued that the Gulf War did not take place—not in the sense that it did not occur, but that it occurred as simulation, as media event, a hyperreal cascade of images. Likewise, US military cinema does not portray war. It portrays the cinematic ideal of war. The soldier is no longer a person; he is an archetype. The enemy is no longer human; it is a shadow to be annihilated.
This is not accidental. The Pentagon has long collaborated with Hollywood to script these spectacles. Access to military hardware, locations, and consultants is conditioned upon approval of the screenplay. This is not fiction. It is an industrial symbiosis: the military-entertainment complex. David L. Robb and Matthew Alford have documented this machinery in forensic detail. The Department of Defense has reviewed, altered, and sanitized hundreds of scripts. We are not watching films; we are watching scripture, vetted and blessed by the high priests of war.
The theologian Reinhold Niebuhr spoke of the "morality of nations" as distinct from that of individuals. Nations, he argued, must act with power, not innocence. Yet military cinema blurs this line, cloaking geopolitical ambition in personal grief. The soldier’s trauma becomes the nation’s absolution. Slavoj Žižek has noted that ideology functions precisely in such moments: when suffering is aestheticized, empathy weaponized.
This is Gnosticism inverted. The Gnostic myth posits a false god—the demiurge—who builds a false world to imprison souls in illusion. Military cinema, too, constructs a cosmos—patriotic, moral, emotionally resonant—to veil the underlying machinery of extraction, intervention, and dominion. It offers not escape from illusion, but a deepening into it. The veil is gilded with medals.
Think of the drone pilot in Eye in the Sky, torn between legality and morality. Think of Chris Kyle in American Sniper, sainted sniper, whose internal wounds parallel the bullet wounds of his enemies. These films do not depict geopolitical complexity; they translate it into liturgy. They transubstantiate doubt into faith, history into parable.
Walter Benjamin wrote that the aestheticization of politics is the hallmark of fascism. American military cinema aestheticizes not only politics, but pain. It choreographs mourning. It packages grief. In these films, the funeral march is a marketing device. The cross is replaced by the folded flag, handed to the widow by a solemn officer whose face reflects both duty and redemption.
Yet all is not seamless. Glitches appear. The uncanny slips in. Kathryn Bigelow's The Hurt Locker teeters at the edge of critique, revealing war as addiction, as pathology. The character cannot function in peacetime. He returns to the field, not as hero, but as tragic pilgrim. Here, the mask of glory slips. But even in these more ambivalent portrayals, the structure remains: the soldier suffers, but the mission endures. The war machine is not questioned, only the soul of the man inside it.
Where is the enemy? He is rarely seen. When visible, he is de-individualized, flattened, named only in generic terms: insurgent, terrorist, hostile. Edward Said’s concept of Orientalism lingers here: the Other reduced to a narrative function, a silhouette to be targeted. The camera rarely lingers on their wounds.
Theologian James Cone wrote that any theology which fails to address the suffering of the oppressed is not Christian theology. So too, any cinema that valorizes violence without listening to the voices crushed beneath its boot is not truth, but idolatry. It worships the golden calf of empire.
What, then, is to be done? We must become iconoclasts of the screen. We must name what is consecrated in blood and celluloid. This does not mean rejecting all portrayals of military life. It means resisting the sacralization of empire. It means watching with apophatic vision—seeing not what is shown, but what is omitted. Who bleeds? Who speaks? Who is humanized, and who is pixelated into target?
The radical theologian Simone Weil believed attention was the purest form of prayer. Let us attend, then. Let us watch these films not as devotees, but as dissenters. Let us interrogate the liturgy. Let us refuse the sacrament of state-sanctioned sorrow.
For in the end, propaganda is not just lies. It is beauty turned against itself. It is poetry weaponized. And in resisting it, we must reclaim not only truth, but imagination.
The screen glows. The flag flutters. The music swells. Somewhere, a door closes. Somewhere else, a mind begins to open.
No comments:
Post a Comment