Article Entry
25 Mar 2009
Comments:19
CIA Chief: Hollywood Gets Spy World All Wrong; Really??
Added by USGIF Category: Daily Intelligence Brief, General
Last week, new C.I.A. Director Leon Panetta sent along a memo to his troops upon coming home from his first big trip abroad to India and Pakistan. The intention of the memo was to convey how impressed he was with the professionalism and dedication of agency personnel. He also noted that he watched a number of spy flicks like The Bourne Identity and said that Hollywood gets it all wrong:
“Yes, I admit I’ve watched a Bourne movie and three other spy flicks on the flight home and smiled when I thought about how Hollywood has no idea about what we can really do. The great skill and contribution of our work would make a better movie. . . but no one would believe it!”
The average citizen surely wonders if spy movies are like real life — they have to, right? Now here’s what we want to know…what do analysts and folks working in the intelligence community think?? Obviously, you all can’t disclose classified information, but a quick note to let us know if Hollywood would be blown away if they knew what REALLY went on. Or, conversely, if Hollywood blows it all out of proportion, we would like to know that too. Look forward to hearing from you!
Tags: Bourne Identity, Central Intelligence Agency, CIA, GEOINT, geopsatial intelligence, Hollywood, Intelligence Community, Leon Panetta, Spy movies, USGIF
From Linked-In:
I think it is painfully obvious that we were wrong about the “weapons of mass destruction” and that we have failed to find Bin Laden. Carl Sagan was famous for his quote that “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”. Hollywood wants us to believe that our intel community has various types of super powers because this sells movies. The reality is that we can’t find weapons that dont exist and we can’t find terrorists that do exist. It seems painfully obvious that we also failed to connect the dots to prevent the 9/11 attacks in the first place. If the claim is that we have extraordinary intelligence ….then we should seem some extraordinary evidence in terms of the ability to find Bin Laden and the ability to avoid conflicts by counter terror measures and other measures in hotspots around the world. When I read the newspaper….or view materials on the web…or virtually any other source….I do not see this evidence. It is always possible that there are classified documents about which I know nothing and will never see…. and it is always possible that aliens crashed in Roswell, NM”
From Linked-In:
“Hollywod gets a great deal of it wrong, and for that I am grateful. There is a great deal of access to books that can be purchsed by just about anyone that were written by people who have worked extensively in the IC. So, there is much opportunity for Hollywood to get too much of it right. As with franchises such as C.S.I. and the like, Hollywood has a tendancy to oversimplify the construct of intelligence processes, thereby giving the American public a distorted representation of how much time, effort and manpwer actually goes into evaluating intelligence and decrying something as a credible threat (or not). I also feel that shows like 24 and movies like Body of Lies, tend to overstate the “Insider Threat” to some degree. 24, for instance, makes its nut on intelligence agencies being compromised by sources from within. While this is a real, not perceived, threat, it does not rise to the level 24 portrays, which further promotes the idea that our systems are so porous that we cannot keep our own affairs in order let alone detemine the state of other’s.”
How about movies like the The Good Shepherd or the made for TV miniseries, “The Company”? They certainly not glorifying in a Bourne-like manner.
From Linked-In:
“As a former Assistant Secretary at the Department of Homeland Security, I spent a lot of time with Secretary Chertoff who is a big fan of 24. He has even visited the show in Hollywood and also when filming on location in Washington. I can tell you that there is little relationship between what Jack Bauer does and what Michael Chertoff oversaw. Even if you throw in the FBI and the other members of the intell community, Bauer still operates with regularity outside the existing rules, regulations, and laws. While entertaining, I am concerned that such shows may in fact complicate a serious discussion of what our government is or can do to address the real threats we face. They tend to muddy the water of public discourse and contribute to either glamorizing such things or worse creating a false reality. Lets hope that the American people can separate fact from fiction.”
From Linked-In:
“Hollywood (no fault of their own) has the attention span of a gnat and therefore is poor at capturing the painstaking process of analysis and building a picture well – instead focusing on the ‘sexier’ operations. Films such as Spy Game (Redford & Pitt), and the Harrison Ford Jack Ryan movies make good nods in this direction (in my own opinion)… Thought of course Bond remains unbeatable……..”
From Linked-In:
Of Course Hollywood gets it wrong. Would you as a citizen of this or any country want them to expose your nations Intelligence community? I know I would not.
Besides, genuine intel work is boring, who wants wo watch a bunch of analysts sitting around a room “analizing data”?
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
I would rather watch something completely fantastic that would take me away from grind of a daily routine and provide me some old fashion gratious special effects and over the top stunts.
From Linked-In:
“Well, for one, many Hollywood projects hire some pretty well informed people for the research. But films are just that… films. Take 24 the TV series. By season 7, someone should have realized that banning the use of cell phones within critical agency buildings could have saved the end of the world from taking place 7 times. But this would kill the intrigue. Some movies will age better then others also. War games is still a classic. Now if you want to pick apart a specific movie for it’s … lack of validity… then I would love to get a title to start dissecting…..”
From Linked-In:
A great point. I direct you to Real Genius (one of my favorites) along with Gotcha!. I know I am dating myself but I thought it a great place to start the discussion.”
From Linked-In:
“Leon is giving credit to the job well-done to all of the men and women serving in the community and that all of them and the roles they perform are all valued and important to the IC mission. There is no one person (Jason Bourne type) or small group running around ‘getting it all done’.”
From Linked-In:
“What always gets me about those films is that everyone from the station chief to the entry level analyst runs around like they are field operators. I think Hollywood would get bored with the real day to day.”
Linked-In:
“Hollywood gets it wrong but they do portray it the way some of use who do those jobs wish it would be. I will echo Lee’s comment, you will never see supervisors or managers leaving their insulated world. Its the street agents and analysts that take the risks. You never hear of a rogue lawyer or supervisor of director… Only rogue agents.”
From Linked-In:
“Hollywood gets some of it wrong – and that’s okay. It’s entertainment – and some of it IS entertaining – ESPECIALLY when you know that “x” is TOTALLY wrong, would never happen that way in real life, “Geez! What was he/she smoking when they wrote that scene?” …and on and on and… Anyway, we ALL (tongue in cheek) know that “Jack Is The Man!” (Jack Bauer (Kiefer Southerland) 24Hours@Fox) – and if you don’t know that, You Don’t Know Jack! (Big Smiles!)”
From Linked-In:
“We (SGI) were technical advisors on a TV show (“Vanished” on Fox- which lived up to its name after one season) a few years ago. They would send over the scripts for my review as each draft was produced. I would sit in on meetings with the writers and producers. We even spent long hours on the set as the show was being shot. In other words, we had constant input on all things related to law enforcement (SWAT movements, investigative technoques, etc) on the show. The thing I learned real quick is that if it isn’t enteraining, is too expensive, or gets in the way of “drama” it will not fly in that world. Example: one of the first scenes we shot was a SWAT entry into a utility hatch in a tunnel. They had everyone in full SWAT kit except for the two lead actors (who were making entry with the team). We explained that this was about as credible as shooting an underwater scene where everyone except the lead is wearing SCUBA gear. They relented on that point, but didn’t want them to wear helmets, as it would obscure their faces on camera. The main lead was the guy who actually went back and forth with the director and producers over that one. He knew that it wouldn’t be realistic, so he wanted full helmet and goggles for the scene. They compromised and let him wear the helmet, but he had to keep the goggles up on top of it. Since that does happen from time to time (guys forget to pull their goggles down on missions-been there, done that), I felt a little better about the whole thing. There were many other times that they totally ignored our input and shot things that were high in dramatic content but very low in realism. On the nights those episodes aired, my cell phone would ring off the hook with my teammates calling me up to give me a hard time about every little inaccuracy they saw onscreen. As has been stated earlier- Hollywood does get it wrong fairly often, and we should be glad that they do. Not only for OpSec reasons, but for entertainment value.”
From Linked-In:
“Hollywood always gets it wrong, because it about a simple plot line and drama. It sells tickets. Explaining the nuance of an enemy diplomat’s telephone habits, not so much. The spook world is pretty boring, excitement is a rare thing, and really isnt desired. (explosions and car crashes make for publicity, not good spying). Diligence and Observation are the the keys to success. As for technology, my non-knowledgable guess is they have more cool gadgets that we might find out about in 10-20 years, but secrets are best kept when devices are rarely used.”
From Linked-In:
“There’s enough “dis-information” mixed in to keep all the alphabet soup agencies happy. Aside from that, most don’t even come close to scratching the surface…”
Yes they get it wrong because real spying is boring. Breaking into an embassy at 3 am is dramatic but pretty far-fetched. Reading through foreign newspapers, debriefing business travelers and chatting up the wife of the Elbonian third secretary for economic cooperation are all BORING but absolutely vital to national security.
I absolutely LOVED “Alias,” because it was escapist. I also loved “The Good Shepherd,” “The Company,” and “Yuri Nosenko: Double Agent.”
I’d love to hear everyone’s thoughts on “The Falcon and the Snowman” and “Breach.”
From Linked-In:
“Actual Intelligence gathering and analysis is boring, boring, boring and often very routine. You could make a movie about watching paint dry, but that is not Hollywood. So you take a scenario, which may actually have occurred and embellish it and make it into a commercial product. Often a mosaic of incidents and situations are fused together. Most Intelligence Analysts and Collectors are very dedicated and professional. Today we have legions of private intelligence companies, some good, some plain head cases, but all shrouded in the same secrecy as the traditional government employees. This does lead to a peppering of those who believe in rogue operations, off the books mayhem and operations that please politicians like the Panetta’s of the world, but would disgust the average American. (Mr Panetta should read up on Phoenix in Vietnam.) Panetta, who couldn’t spot a spy unless he was wearing a badge, should let Hollywood paint a picture the public wants to see in their theaters, and let the real Intel Community do it’s job quietly. Constantly comparing leads people to want to investigate every intelligence failure and look behind the curtain at the Wizard. Let our enemies believe he is omnipotent and let the people believe in Celluloid Heroes, who fight for justice and honor. And Leon, please don’t get your indoctrination by viewing spy flicks, address the real issues that are paralyzing effective intelligence analysis.”
From Linked-In:
“Hollywood is in it for the entertainment, or often misguided causes or agendas that have government conspiracy undertones. It’s also hard to boil down effective intelligence operations into 2 hour bites, and poetic license always beats factual credibility. I think Charlie Wilson’s War, while oversimplified, did a good job of showing how long, patient nug work by ordinary people is often what makes intelligence operations really work. It’s probably better that most folks don’t about many of the covert actions that are so necessary in today’s world, and that Hollywood provides fictional capabilities to our intelligence assets that might deter a bad guy. Of course, the flip side of that is, like with CSI, the public starts to believe the fiction, and become impatient when operators don’t deliver the goods in the TV or movie timeframe. My $.02.”
From Linked-In:
“I am also glad they get it wrong because if it were accurate, the opposition would be in hog heaven. I roll my eyes at some of these movies where people get “read in” for access to classified national security information simply by being briefed on the material.”