Top Gun: Entertainment or Propaganda?

 by Isabel Fisher

The announcement of Top Gun Three led me down into a wormhole of articles. I had certain questions concerning the franchise (more than just ‘’Surely Cruise is too old to do another, why can’t he just let it go?’’).

Top Gun features Pete ‘Maverick’ Mitchell, a Naval Aviator Lieutenant for the US Navy. Portrayed as a skilled pilot with a tendency to break the rules, Maverick certainly implies that it is possible to have fun in the armed forces. Various moments, such as the famous Great Balls of Fire scene further this image of life in the Navy being full of fun camaraderie and singsongs; much like a scout troop. 

The film-makers were careful to ensure enemy powers remain deliberately vague, and most of the dogfights take place in international waters, but many could interpret some hidden politics in Top Gun. Released towards the end of the Cold War, Top Gun was another ploy in the USA’s strategy against the USSR. In the early 1960s both sides had begun to weaponise cinema in their campaigns. The USA were keen to eradicate any pro-Communist sentiment, and, conversely, the USSR were equally keen to dispel any anti-Communist thoughts. One method of doing this would be to boost patriotism and positive views of the US military. Top Gun could be seen as a form of white propaganda - propaganda which does not attempt to hide its origins or intentions. This is certainly not hidden in Top Gun. Whilst it may paint an over glamorised picture of the Navy, at no point does it try to pretend that it isn't doing just that.

In fact, in some US cinemas showing the film (and its sequel!), the Navy set up recruitment booths to enlist inspired young cinema goers. Around the time of release, it was claimed that the number of men joining the US Navy wishing to be naval aviators rose significantly. We’ve all been to see a film, and walked out admiring the lifestyle/ career/ etc of the main character. However, is it morally right to capitalise on this desire in such an extreme way (as opposed to merely watching Charlie and the Chocolate Factory and exiting the cinema to be confronted with some tempting sweet treats)?

It is no secret that Hollywood often allows the Department of Defence access to scripts and a say in the portrayal of the military, in return for the use of expensive equipment. In cases where the two are unable to reach agreement, the DoD will stop co-operating entirely. Despite this being prevalent in many Hollywood films centred around warfare, the extent to which the US Government is involved in the writing of such films is not usually made obvious to theatregoers . This begs the question of the extent to which the state should be involved in film production, as many could argue that what starts off as the US Government interfering with the portrayal of their armed forces in Hollywood, could lead down a slippery slope to total control.

Despite my personal reservations around these issues, I’m sure that the third Top Gun will be yet another huge box office hit, and I look forward to judging whether Tom Cruise can still withstand the altitude of the fighter jets.