Interbrand IQ: The Best Asian Brands Issue

rss

brandcameo

Retreat, Sell! "Battle: LA" and Product Placing the Marines

Posted by Abe Sauer on March 14, 2011 01:00 PM

Battle: Los Angeles is ostensibly about an alien invasion, but it's really about being a United States Marine. In fact, it's a Marine recruiting video, and a powerful one. No surprise there. For all the ink that's spilled on the product placement strategies of Apple, Coke, Audi or some other consumer brand, nobody — not even cigarette-makers — has harnessed the power of product placement like the Marines.

Battle: Los Angeles has some obvious product placement, including Casio watches, Landshark lager and, this being a Sony Pictures movie — just as we saw in The Social Network — there are Sony Vaios, lots of them. (Are we to believe US armed forces are all stocked with Sony Vaios?) 

But the real product being sold in Battle: LA is the Marines.

The film follows a small unit from California's Camp Pendleton 2nd Battalion 5th Marines. But Camp Pendleton was more than just a plot point. Real Marines from Camp Pendleton participated in training Battle: LA's actors, while around 50 active duty Marines appear as extras in the film.

The Marines even have an officer whose job it is to liaise between the Corps and Hollywood to ensure that the filmmakers "protect the image of the Marine Corps." Those are the exact words of Lt. Col. Jason Johnson, the official Marine liaison to Battle: LA, to Nola.com.

When it comes to the Marines brand, filmmakers better follow what Johnson "suggests" or the US military will cease cooperation. Not only is that cooperation valuable from a storytelling perspective, but also from a bottom line one. Because Battle: Los Angeles closely followed Johnson's script notes and production suggestions, the film was to use a large number of (otherwise expensive or impossible to secure) Marine resources, such as MV-22 Ospreys aircraft, helicopters, and other vehicles — not to mention the Marines themselves. Maybe we should think of this as product "embedding" instead of placement.

Oddly enough, despite all its cooperation and Lt. Col. Johnson's close involvement in crafting the film, he is not mentioned anywhere in the Battle: Los Angeles credits. Cementing the cooperation between the film's producers and the Marines, the film premiered at Camp Pendleton. Addressing the crowd before the show, the film's star, Aaron Eckhart, said, "This is a movie about Marines… kicking ass. When people see this movie, we want to make sure that they love the Marines."

So while Battle: LA's screenwriter Chris Bertolini has described the project as a mesh of Black Hawk Down and Aliens, the film really has more in common, in both form and function, with a 1952 Korean War film.

In 1951, during the Korean War, the United States Pictures division of Warners Bros. coordinated with the US Marine Corps to release a filmed propaganda titled, yes, Retreat, Hell! Released in 1952, the film had the close cooperation of the Marine Corps, including script supervision and even the the use of, that's right, Camp Pendleton.

OK, call it productganda then. Battle: LA features one bit of Marine lore injected into its dialogue that is tremendously telling with regard to the Hollywood's history of product placing the Marine Corps.

 

In a key scene scene, our Marine staff sergeant hero explains to a group of civilians the significance of the "Retreat, Hell!" motto yelled by his unit. "Retreat, Hell!," he explains, is Marine legend from a World War I battle during which a Marine officer said after being ordered to retreat, "Hell, we just got here."

Battle: Los Angeles's plot even mirrors the plotline of the 1952 film. Both begin with Marine operations against an enemy that go horribly wrong, with our Marine Corps heros are forced into a desperate attempt to fall back to safety, only to regroup and make another push. Both films end with the Marines, tired and wounded but sucking it up to head off to another battle. Both films even contain a sub-plot about Marine brothers, one of whom dies.

In an interview years later, Korean War veteran Donald Eaton spoke of how, after seeing Retreat Hell! in 1952, half his friends rushed out to join the Marine Corps. Fast forward to Battle: LA's opening weekend and the following tweets:

One thing that the Marine Corps understands about the advertising practice maybe better than any other "brand" is that successful product placement can still be "bad." In both Battle: LA and Retreat Hell!, the audience watches numerous Marines get killed in action.

It would seem unlikely, but these deaths are less of a concern for the Marines than maintaining the honor of the Corps. It might seem counterintuitive that possible death would be in any way an acceptable part of a recruiting tool, but it turns out that a far less acceptable recruiting tool is depicting fear of of possible death.

This antithetical consumption of war films has been known for a long time. Despite messages that should make military service seem as unappealing as possible, movies such as Full Metal Jacket, Three Kings, and Blackhawk Down only serve to goose militiamania.

Speaking to The New York Times, Matt Swofford, author of Jarhead, a book-turned-movie about Marines in the first Gulf War, said ”Vietnam War films are all pro-war, no matter what the supposed message, what Kubrick or Coppola or Stone intended. . . . The magic brutality of the films celebrates the terrible and despicable beauty of their fighting skills. Fight, rape, war, pillage, burn. Filmic images of death and carnage are pornography for the military man.’‘

The military itself fully understands how powerful its product placements are. Proof of this comes in the book Generation Kill, the story of a Marine battalion in Iraq in 2003, Rolling Stone journalist Evan Wright notes that the Marine unit in which he was embedded was shown Black Hawk Down at Kuwaiti Camp Mathilda on the eve of joining combat operations in Iraq.

For all the brands featured in Battle: Los Angeles, including the Marine Corps, visit the Brandcameo database.

Comments

griffin United Kingdom says:

Well, I am must have been blinded by the quick succession of jerky imagery and deafened by the cacophony of sound because I missed most of the product placement in these movie.  It really was like a recruitment film for the marines. By the way, it was not very good at all.

March 15, 2011 06:23 AM #

Kinnison United States says:

Every Service provides liaison officers to movie crews making films about their outfits.  It's been going on since WWI.  And for a war movie to promote the United States Marine Corps it doesn't take the pervading influence of a liaison officer...who is mostly around to ensure that the movie makers get the wearing of the uniforms and the customs and courtesies right...all it has to be is truthful.  All the Marine Corps needs in the way of publicity is for Hollywood to tell the truth about its 235 year history of honor, bravery and combat successes.  "First to Fight" is not just a slogan, it's the truth, and with battle honors like Belleau Wood, St. Miheal, Guadalcanal, Tarawa, Iwo Jima, Chosin Resevoir, Tet, Hue CIty and Fallujah on their colors the Marines don't need much exaggeration of their combat expertise.  "No better friends, no worse enemies".

March 15, 2011 10:03 AM #

Midwest Marines United States says:

I can see why people think this and working in recruiting as a SM guy I definitely saw some of these twitter posts. I have worked on some similar projects over the past 4 years and can tell you that while it is about our image, it is not about influencing or changing the vision of the director or producer. We hold ourselves to the highest standard based on our illustrious history and only expect to be represented fairly. We don't need movies like this to improve recruiting. The Marine Corps makes mission every year and often early. The waiting period for a new recruit to ship to bootcamp right now is 9 months because we don't have room to send them now. If a crew embedded with a combat unit now the same pride of belonging and love for Corps would show as did in the movie. While Marines are brash and gritty we pride ourselves at being the best of the best. Any moderate filmmaker not hell-bent on attacking us would produce a similar video because it is who we are. I have sat through classes the last 4 days about branding in Social Media at SXSW and realized one thing, the Marine Corps is no brand. It is a way of life.

March 15, 2011 05:01 PM #

3/5 Marines United States says:

not only was this a good movie, but it did one hella of a job with showing what marines are.

2/5 Retreat Hell!!! way to go!!!

March 17, 2011 10:53 PM #

Comments are closed

Brand Chatter on Twitter

elsewhere on brandchannel

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
brandcameo2013 Product Placement Awards
Which brand is most bullish on Hollywood?
Coca-ColaIt's the Journey That Matters:
Coca-Cola Opens Up With Story-Based Web Refresh
debateJoin the Debate
What makes a great brand?
BPBP
Branding Comeback Challenges
Denise Lee YohnLance Armstrong’s Brand
Denise Lee Yohn Weighs In
Digital Watch: WahlAT&T
Rethinking Possible With Transmedia Storytelling
paperGlobal Competitive [Ad]vantage
The latest from GeoEdge
Sheryl Connelly
Sheryl Connelly

Meet Ford's Resident Futurist
Marketing to the New MajorityBranding 123
A primer by Barry Silverstein