|
mugrim posted:Okay, a 'good' anti-war movie. Focusing on psychological damage on the side that doesn't have killing field amounts of body dumps is a bit less "Anti-war" and more "War is serious/harms our soldiers" So not All Quiet on the Western Front?
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2015 00:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 04:23 |
|
|
The problem is, that's a boring loving message for a war film. It's the same thing that every US war film says, which definitely does have something to do with the fact that US civilians aren't suffering mass casualties. You can certainly make a great war film that doesn't focus on the soldiers (Come and See, Empire of the Sun, Schindler's List). Yes, PTSD is terrible. But when you weigh having a freakout in the cereal aisle vs. having entire bloodlines wiped out, whole cities bombed to rubble, hundreds of thousands dead and maimed, trying to scratch out a living in an apocalyptic hellscape, you're not going to convince me that that the former is the "real" horror of war. Painting the traumatic experiences of volunteer servicemen and women as the "worst thing about war," as Eastwood claims, is never going to make for an effective anti-war film, because 99% of the population is completely and utterly insulated from that experience. Doubly so when the film goes out of its way to dehumanize and vilify the Iraqi civilians. The film's message becomes a platitude. Everyone can nod their heads and agree that PTSD is tragic, and war is bad, but that's where the introspection ends. It doesn't contribute any more towards ending war than saying "cancer is bad" contributes to curing cancer. And on top of all that, this film doesn't even do a good job of portraying how lovely PTSD is. It's not even a competent delivery system for the tapioca pudding version of anti-war sentiment.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2015 00:51
|
|
|
computer parts posted:So not All Quiet on the Western Front? Well, even personally surviving the horrors of WWI didn't exactly dissuade a certain Austrian corporal from launching a bigger, more grotesque conflict. There's a certain element of truth here, I think, though we need to be careful to separate the idea of a 'good movie that is ostensibly critical of an existing conflict', and 'an effectively anti-war movie, that persuasively enlightens the audience'. All Quiet on the Western Front is great literature, but effectively irrelevant outside its narrow window in time. Indeed, the general category of 'oh it sucks for our boys' movies is fast becoming irrelevant in the face of drone warfare, and other techniques allowing killing at a distance. Aspects of American Sniper, such as the insinuation that it is militarily necessary to kill women and children without much need for remorse or search for alternatives, are definitely pro-war in the modern context. It reinforces the attitude of those who hear of kids getting blown up in the news, and think "pfft they probably deserved it". In the modern political context, the only political power of these films is to push for a more pleasant and safer killing environment for our troops. Woo. Fangz fucked around with this message at 00:56 on Feb 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2015 00:52
|
|
|
Fangz posted:All Quiet on the Western Front is great literature, but effectively irrelevant outside its narrow window in time. Uhhh...
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2015 01:01
|
|
|
Yeah I think you need to elaborate on that one.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2015 01:19
|
|
|
Grizzled Patriarch posted:The problem is, that's a boring loving message for a war film. It's the same thing that every US war film says, which definitely does have something to do with the fact that US civilians aren't suffering mass casualties. You can certainly make a great war film that doesn't focus on the soldiers (Come and See, Empire of the Sun, Schindler's List). Yes, PTSD is terrible. But when you weigh having a freakout in the cereal aisle vs. having entire bloodlines wiped out, whole cities bombed to rubble, hundreds of thousands dead and maimed, trying to scratch out a living in an apocalyptic hellscape, you're not going to convince me that that the former is the "real" horror of war. Pretty much nails the reason this movie would be entirely forgotten within a week if not for the faux controversy that boils down to 'people don't like it and a couple people said genuine dumb things, COMMUNISTS HATE THE TROOPS'. Eastwood lost any balls he had in an attempt to hide his war boner behind a thin mask of 'the horrors of war'. Like I said before, Kyle's actual book, if you read it understanding what a pile of lies and crazy it is' is an amazing look at the actual damage of war on a person. War takes the kind of guy who'd go 'yea gently caress the country I'm just here to shoot folks' and goes "YEA GOOD WAY OF THINKING THIS IS A GOOD THING HERE'S A GUN AND A BUNCH OF PEOPLE WE WANT YOU TO KILL GOGOGOGOGO" and what that spits out at the end is the kind of guy who writes fanfic about sniping 'looters' from the superdome. No that isn't every soldier, in fact it isn't even most soldiers, but it's a thing that happens, and Kyle's story should be told as a loving tragedy because he's the loving poster boy for 'this dude probably should have gotten help instead of a rifle, good job military'. It's not an a anti-war film by any means, it's a really weak and lovely pro-war film, it's a biography that somehow manages to lie in totally unique ways compared to the actual lie filled biography he made so it's a poo poo biography. It's just nothing, a big nothing that Eastwood legitimately seems to think is something noble and brave to be proud of making.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2015 02:04
|
|
|
Grizzled Patriarch posted:The problem is, that's a boring loving message for a war film. It's the same thing that every US war film says, which definitely does have something to do with the fact that US civilians aren't suffering mass casualties. You can certainly make a great war film that doesn't focus on the soldiers (Come and See, Empire of the Sun, Schindler's List). Yes, PTSD is terrible. But when you weigh having a freakout in the cereal aisle vs. having entire bloodlines wiped out, whole cities bombed to rubble, hundreds of thousands dead and maimed, trying to scratch out a living in an apocalyptic hellscape, you're not going to convince me that that the former is the "real" horror of war. I think you can make an Anti-War film that focuses on the costs to US troops but you'd have to focus on more than PTSD. PTSD is just a symptom of the problem. The real problem is recruiters trolling high schools, feeding kids lies to make them sign up, those kids then being sent to brainwashing camps, and the US Army locking them in a state of arrested development emotionally/socially so by the time they should be getting out they're so unfamiliar and uncomfortable with the outside world that they feel they have no choice but to re-enlist. Its remarkably similar to our prison system, honestly. It snares tons of young people and just traps them for the rest of their lives. Edit: So basically make The Wire into a war-movie, is what I'm saying. 
Luminous Obscurity fucked around with this message at 02:58 on Feb 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2015 02:47
|
|
|
people who have never been in or around the military psychoanalyzing the military itt your drunk grandpa doesn't count
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2015 03:24
|
|
|
Psychoanalysts must have tough jobs, they got to do everything!
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2015 04:08
|
|
|
Yo this movie was boring as hell.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2015 05:18
|
|
|
I'm surprised there's never been a movie about Hugh Thompson Jr., the helicopter pilot who helped rescue a number of Vietnamese villagers during the My Lai massacre. He had his crew train their machine gun on Lt. Calley's band of roving nutjobs, allowing them to help out a bunch of Vietnamese who would have otherwise been slaughtered like the rest. Of course when the truth got out, rather than being officially hailed as a hero as you might expect, he was criticized for threatening his fellow soldiers, almost court marshalled, and basically regarded as a traitor by many, even receiving death threats from some. It would be a good example a movie primarily focused on a soldier that I could get behind, as well showing that the US military does at least have a few genuine heroes now and then amidst the kid-killers like Calley and Kyle.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2015 05:20
|
|
|
Pedro De Heredia posted:Many well-known films that are considered 'anti-war' are about soldiers. You are free to believe in the idea that a 'good' anti-war movie can only be about the losing side's civilians' dying, but it's not some super popular notion. Just because a movie has a semi-tragic ending involving a protagonist does not mean it's not inherently glorifying what happens in the interim. Pedro De Heredia posted:War harming soldiers is part of an anti-war message, since soldiers are human beings and citizens who in many cases were conscripted, or in many cases the army was the best path they thought they could take, or whatever. In the case of America's wars, soldiers (and their relatives, friends, etc.) are likely to be the only people from America who are suffering from the war, since the wars are fought elsewhere. If the soldiers killing others is glamorized and the pain is injected to make them relatable in an asymmetrical war, that's an issue with your anti-war movie. The guy who is rarely portrayed in "Anti-war" movies who needs to be there is the real life Chris Kyle, which is why I was super excited when the movie was announced. Harsh Times is arguably a better anti-war movie than most of the ones people want to list in general. It at least really examines a broken person without trying to clean it up. Pedro De Heredia posted:American civilians aren't being killed in America's wars. That's probably why. You could also say that war movies about civilians being murdered and thrown in a ditch wouldn't be very interesting. That would absolutely be interesting. The reason what you call an "anti-war movie" is interesting is because it's glamorizing and thus endorsing what happens. An Anti-war movie that finds itself being 'interesting' by having the protagonists kill 'the other' is inherently flawed in it's purpose.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2015 05:38
|
|
|
BobKnob posted:One of the more disturbing things I found about the movie was when Kyle and his wife were driving back from a buddies funeral. Before the guy died he apparently send his mother a letter saying how he didn't believe in the war or something. In the car ride home Kyle basically says that the guy died basically because he wrote that letter and "stopped believing". Almost seems like Kyle thinks that if you aren't 100 percent gung ho about the war you deserve to die. That letter he is talking about, by the way, is pretty drat good. It strikes me as a potentially excellent character point on why Chris thought of Marc's letter that way. Would've rather had a movie on this dude to be honest: http://americasmightywarriors.org/_a/marcs-last-letter-home/ Others have shared their thoughts on this, but the letter is worth reading. E: Cole posted:people who have never been in or around the military psychoanalyzing the military itt This isn't a gotcha: could you elaborate for us, please? You served/are serving and have had experiences, correct? I was hoping more Gippers would chime into this thread - GIP is the forum I found out about Chris Kyle on, personally - and share some thoughts. All the same, you don't gotta share anything. Armani fucked around with this message at 10:07 on Feb 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2015 09:46
|
|
|
mugrim posted:That would absolutely be interesting. The reason what you call an "anti-war movie" is interesting is because it's glamorizing and thus endorsing what happens. An Anti-war movie that finds itself being 'interesting' by having the protagonists kill 'the other' is inherently flawed in it's purpose. Anti-war movies are called anti-war because they are not glamorizing, or endorsing, the war. People say they are anti-war movies because they don't agree with your proposition that merely depicting war from the point of view of a soldier glamorizes it, and that glamorizing ends up becoming an endorsement. Anti-war movies, or war movies in general, aren't interesting because soldiers are killing a bunch of other people. They are interesting because soldiers see more things and have more agency in the context of a war than civilians. Therefore, you can do a traditional story, with some characters with agency, different conflicts, three acts, whatever. You have a ridiculously narrow view of what is 'acceptable' to depict and what is 'flawed'. And hey, you're free to feel that way, but repeating and rewording it doesn't make it a better or more convincing argument. Pedro De Heredia fucked around with this message at 11:21 on Feb 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2015 11:18
|
|
|
I thought the recent Testament of Youth was a great antiwar film. Problem with making an antiwar film is that war and battle is cinematically thrilling, which undermines the message a bit. Testament stays firmly behind the lines, watching mangled men getting shipped to a field hospital.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2015 12:05
|
|
|
Armani posted:
first, let me just say i'm shocked that you are being cordial. i think i'm too used to dnd. It's just kind of offensive when people say "the military is like this" and they are very specific in their thoughts when really, they don't have a clue because they've never done anything like it. My thoughts on Chris Kyle: Excellent Seal, lovely person. Based on what I know of him, I would have loving LOVED to have that dude doing overwatch for us, but I wouldn't let him take care of my dog stateside. This "boring as gently caress" film that you guys have watched actually resonates with a lot of people who have served, and not necessarily because of the Iraq scenes. For me, the toughest scene to watch was when he was getting his car fixed or the oil changed or whatever, and that dude was thanking him for saving his life. That scene in particular is probably boring for a lot of people. But the discomfort on his face when he is saying "yeah.. yeah thanks" or whatever the lines were, are exactly what it is like for most people who have served or are still serving when you thank a veteran, especially one who has lost friends. It was tough because it hit true to home. The war scenes were fairly well made. The scene where he shoots the kid was pretty tough to watch. My biggest fear prior to deploying wasn't dying or my friends dying, it was having to shoot a kid. The movie did a great job showing how lovely that do-or-die situation was. But everyone is an expert on how it ~*~should~*~ have gone when really, their opinions aren't based anywhere in the realm of reality. For the record, my priorities shifted and my friends' well-being took the top spot after about a month into my deployment, when a 13 year old was strapped with a bomb and walked into a wedding, killing 40 and injuring 77. Combine that with friends dying? Trust me, it's very easy to see every single Muslim, Islamist, whatever name you want to give them, as the enemy. Or "savages," as it was put in the movie. That wasn't Eastwood saying Iraqis are savages, or the movie painting an unrealistic portrait of things. Just about every American troop thinks every Iraqi and Afghan that are still in Iraq and Afghanistan are savages through personal experience. Before my deployments, I didn't have much interaction with either and didn't think anything terrible about them. But imagine if your first 12-15 months of experiences with black people was nothing but violent, death, carnage, blood and destruction. You might start seeing black people in a certain light as well. Trust me, most of us don't go in thinking that way, it's just a symptom of war. For what it's worth, it took me over a year to let go of the grudges I unjustly held against an entire culture of people, but I finally have. You might say Eastwood glamorized war with this movie, you might say that it's poo poo or w/e and your opinions are fine. But don't speak for every swinging dick like your opinion is gospel. The reason you think it is glamorizing war is because you haven't actually been to war. Trust me, it didn't glamorize anything. Most people are just ignorant. Not a dig, they just think they know what they are talking about, but they don't. A lot of people signed up for the military because of 9/11. That was a very good reason for wanting to defend the United States. Those same people are not the ones who said to go to Iraq. They are not the ones who made it weapons free (if it moves, shoot it). They are just the messengers for the people in charge. Also, when you tell troops that "the entire city is evacuated, anyone there is there for a bad reason," what do you expect? They evacuated entire cities in Iraq and Afghanistan with the pretense that "if you stay, you will get killed, come back later." It's a lovely way to deal with people, yes, but when you're getting shot at you don't care how lovely it is anymore. Cole fucked around with this message at 14:59 on Feb 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2015 14:56
|
|
|
Cole posted:This "boring as gently caress" film that you guys have watched actually resonates with a lot of people who have served, and not necessarily because of the Iraq scenes. For me, the toughest scene to watch was when he was getting his car fixed or the oil changed or whatever, and that dude was thanking him for saving his life. That scene in particular is probably boring for a lot of people. But the discomfort on his face when he is saying "yeah.. yeah thanks" or whatever the lines were, are exactly what it is like for most people who have served or are still serving when you thank a veteran, especially one who has lost friends. It was tough because it hit true to home. No, the boring as gently caress parts were the parts set in Iraq.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2015 15:00
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:No, the boring as gently caress parts were the parts set in Iraq. But what was so boring about them?
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2015 15:03
|
|
|
Cole posted:But what was so boring about them? I'm coming from the perspective of someone watching a film, but I have to ask: have you ever seen one other movie about war? Every time I see this argument, I'm wondering if it's from someone who is bored or annoyed by the way other films depict warfare. quote:That wasn't Eastwood saying Iraqis are savages, or the movie painting an unrealistic portrait of things. Just about every American troop thinks every Iraqi and Afghan that are still in Iraq and Afghanistan are savages through personal experience. Before my deployments, I didn't have much interaction with either and didn't think anything terrible about them. But imagine if your first 12-15 months of experiences with black people was nothing but violent, death, carnage, blood and destruction. You might start seeing black people in a certain light as well. Trust me, most of us don't go in thinking that way, it's just a symptom of war. Yeah, hmm, imagine that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2015 15:11
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:I'm coming from the perspective of someone watching a film, but I have to ask: have you ever seen one other movie about war? Every time I see this argument, I'm wondering if it's from someone who is bored or annoyed by the way other films depict warfare. I have no idea what you are trying to imply here? I actually watched Korengal last night. It's a documentary that is the follow-up to Restrepo. There are many times where the soldiers interviewed say things like "I would rather be [in Korengal] than here." It's one of the most realistic depictions of what war does to people, and one of the most unbiased documentaries I've seen on the subject (though I might be biased in saying that?) And even with that in mind, its pretty anti-war. The war movies I personally hate are things that just get it wrong. Hurt Locker is one of them. Waaaayyyy too many creative liberties were taken with that movie for it to be taken seriously from a military perspective. That one isn't pro/anti-war at all. It's just Hollywood set in the Middle East. Would you rather I said "imagine your first 12-15 months dealing with dogs" instead? Because then you would have just asked me if I'm saying Iraqis are dogs, right? What analogy that people can relate to would have been kosher enough for you to actually merit a decent response? Or do you just want to be a dickhead to be a dickhead?
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2015 15:16
|
|
|
Cole posted:The war movies I personally hate are things that just get it wrong. Hurt Locker is one of them. Waaaayyyy too many creative liberties were taken with that movie for it to be taken seriously from a military perspective. That one isn't pro/anti-war at all. It's just Hollywood set in the Middle East. Such as? quote:Would you rather I said "imagine your first 12-15 months dealing with dogs" instead? Because then you would have just asked me if I'm saying Iraqis are dogs, right? What analogy that people can relate to would have been kosher enough for you to actually merit a decent response? Or do you just want to be a dickhead to be a dickhead? I'm sure now that you're stateside, you can see how your analogy to black people is exactly appropriate.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2015 15:22
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:Such as? Okay, I even said help me come up with another one... and you instead want to continue the lovely discourse instead of actually doing that. How about this: "What if, in your first 12-15 months of dealing with [insert whatever you want here because you clearly didn't get the point and instead are jumping on the racist wagon], it was nothing but...." and then finish my quote there. The Hurt Locker is one of the most unrealistic pieces of poo poo ever made dude. There are no three man EOD teams. There are no three man EOD teams that will go hunting for the bad guy. There are no three man EOD teams that will jump on a sniper rifle and try to wait someone out for several hours without actually trying to call it up to higher. Their uniform tapes were even on backwards in some scenes. You won't ever have a LtCol chaplain out on his own shooing some Iraqis away. The scene where he decides to go vigilante to find out who killed that kid? And then nothing happens to him? What the gently caress? That poo poo just doesn't ever happen.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2015 15:27
|
|
|
Cole posted:It's just kind of offensive when people say "the military is like this" and they are very specific in their thoughts when really, they don't have a clue because they've never done anything like it. A lot has changed since 9/11. I came in about five years ago. Most of the people with me were straight out of high school and joined literally because their recruiters told them it was a good idea (or they wanted to kill brown people). There were a handful of people who came in with loftier ideals (serve your country, societal obligation, etc) but we were all like mid-twenties, so there was a pretty clear difference in mentality. This isn't to say there weren't exceptions, but generally, this seemed to be the trend. The problem with the kids is they had very little experience in the outside world and there weren't a lot of opportunities for them to get any. On top of that, BAH winds up screwing them in the long run because its basically an incentive to get married and start a family ASAP and once they have kids they're pretty much trapped because its way more secure to just re-up than risk finding a job with little to no experience. It's absolutely frustrating to see.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2015 15:33
|
|
|
Cole posted:Okay, I even said help me come up with another one... and you instead want to continue the lovely discourse instead of actually doing that. How about this: "What if, in your first 12-15 months of dealing with [insert whatever you want here because you clearly didn't get the point and instead are jumping on the racist wagon], it was nothing but...." and then finish my quote there. I'm not calling you a racist, actually, I'm wondering what the value of unchallenged ignorance is.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2015 15:33
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:I'm not calling you a racist, actually, I'm wondering what the value of unchallenged ignorance is. Bliss. But seriously, I'm just giving you the reason why troops see people from the middle east in a, generally, less than favorable light. Ignorant as it may be, it's just how it happens. I guess we can just keep it factual since you're dodging the question: what if, in your first 12-15 months of dealing with Iraqis, it was nothing but death, violence, carnage, and bloodshed? Even if your answer is something noble, can you not see how that would manipulate people into having a prejudice? Because that's exactly how it happened to me. My ignorance actually got challenged. I now go to a school that has one of the most diverse student bodies that I have ever seen. Currently I'm working on a peacebuilding project and one of the things I am stressing in it is that I, a former soldier, can get along with a friend of mine, who is from Baghdad. Kind of a message to people that "hey dipshits, just because they are brown-skinned doesn't mean they are bad people." More eloquently than that, but I don't feel like doing the sales pitch here. Luminous Obscurity posted:A lot has changed since 9/11. I came in about five years ago. Most of the people with me were straight out of high school and joined literally because their recruiters told them it was a good idea (or they wanted to kill brown people). There were a handful of people who came in with loftier ideals (serve your country, societal obligation, etc) but we were all like mid-twenties, so there was a pretty clear difference in mentality. This isn't to say there weren't exceptions, but generally, this seemed to be the trend. When DADT got repealed we actually got a brief about how getting married to your buddy isn't a sure ticket out of the barracks. The military knows how lovely things are for junior enlisted, they just don't do anything about it. Cole fucked around with this message at 15:40 on Feb 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2015 15:38
|
|
|
Cole posted:I guess we can just keep it factual since you're dodging the question: what if, in your first 12-15 months of dealing with Iraqis, it was nothing but death, violence, carnage, and bloodshed? Even if your answer is something noble, can you not see how that would manipulate people into having a prejudice? Because that's exactly how it happened to me. I'm already well aware of that, I'm black, and I live in America. Here's an undodgeable question: what was the United States military doing in Iraq?
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2015 15:43
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:I'm already well aware of that, I'm black, and I live in America. Here's an undodgeable question: what was the United States military doing in Iraq? Finishing what Papa Bush started. No really, I think that was Bush's motivation and no, I don't think it was a just invasion. But really, I don't feel like derailing this thread into whether or not Iraq was just or not. I'll just say it wasn't.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2015 15:48
|
|
|
So then, what is the profundity of the story of the thoughtless professional warrior? I don't know, so I'm asking you because of your unique perspective. Would you say this film is remotely as good as Korengal?
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2015 15:50
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:So then, what is the profundity of the story of the thoughtless professional warrior? I don't know, so I'm asking you because of your unique perspective. Would you say this film is remotely as good as Korengal? No. Korengal is much better if you're looking at what effects war has on people. It actually talks to those who were there. American Sniper is still Hollywood. It shows the affects that a lovely administration can have by sending people on a crusade to topple a regime... and then for some reason sticking around for a decade after the fact. If the message of "wow war can really gently caress people up" gets out because of this movie, then it helped more than Korengal did, because it reached a broader audience. But, unfortunately, I think it is tainted in the fact that it is still a Hollywood movie, so people aren't taking it as a serious anti-war message, which I think it is. Cole fucked around with this message at 15:56 on Feb 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2015 15:54
|
|
|
Why do you think it's not being taken seriously as antiwar? Why does this movie inspire such a fervent, patriotic reaction? Don't think I'm asking you a trick question, because I'm serious.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2015 16:05
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:Why do you think it's not being taken seriously as antiwar? Why does this movie inspire such a fervent, patriotic reaction? Don't think I'm asking you a trick question, because I'm serious. Because on one hand, it's an America vs Them story (the Hollywood angle) and on the other hand, people don't actually have a grasp on just how war affects people, so they don't take that angle seriously because it isn't important to them. I think the saying went "The military is at war, America is at the mall."
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2015 16:11
|
|
|
Also, veterans have an unspoken bond between eachother, even if we don't know eachother. You had people like Michael Moore dogging Chris Kyle, which rallied troops and inflated the MERICA message of this movie even more.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2015 16:16
|
|
|
Exactly - the film does not handle Kyle's inner life in the same cavalier way as it does the depiction of a totally simplistic and righteous war. His professional skill adds dimension to his silent grunts, but not in a way that causes empathy. His inability to cope with home makes him rugged, not sympathetic. That's why he's constantly thanked for his service onscreen and off, the film flat out refuses to deal with the situation. So in that way it's less q celebration of war and more a celebration of denial and ignorance. It's fostering those who thank you for your service instead of giving them something to think about.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2015 16:21
|
|
|
In other words, the same kind of puffed chest talk that makes people eager to cheerlead warfare and spend lives that aren't their own.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2015 16:24
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:Exactly - the film does not handle Kyle's inner life in the same cavalier way as it does the depiction of a totally simplistic and righteous war. His professional skill adds dimension to his silent grunts, but not in a way that causes empathy. His inability to cope with home makes him rugged, not sympathetic. That's why he's constantly thanked for his service onscreen and off, the film flat out refuses to deal with the situation. So in that way it's less q celebration of war and more a celebration of denial and ignorance. It's fostering those who thank you for your service instead of giving them something to think about. I'm a really  veteran of uncool deployments that would make terrible Hollywood movies, but here's my take on it, for whatever it's worth:I think part of the disconnect is the difference between depicting suffering caused by war (realistic, good, valid, whatever you want to call it), and making a martyr out of a lovely person for a "noble cause" that was loving poo poo (which is artificial, insincere, lovely, evil, whatever you want to call it.) To be a martyr you have to die for a purpose so noble that your suffering and death shows you are a wonderful person to be admired. The problem is that this guy was a shitbird who suffered for something super stupid. Real people probably really suffered SOMETHING like he is shown to have suffered, and it probably feels real to them and helps the movie resonate with so many people, but the whole thing is framed in a way that is really loving lovely if you think about it for a second. Saying suffering for America makes you awesome and admirable without reference to the politics of the war causing the suffering ISN'T apolitical, it's pushing like the shittiest possible "orders justify anything" view of things. Also, people thanking you for your service are almost always using you as a prop to show off to the people around them how  REAL AMERICAN they are. Or they're just super gross people whose approval makes you want to die. Every once in a while the person is just being nice and can't think of anything else to say, though.e: Looking back at this post I don't think it's super articulate, but hopefully it makes some kind of sense. 
sean10mm fucked around with this message at 16:39 on Feb 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2015 16:33
|
|
|
I just finished watching this film and as an ex-serviceman who struggled with losing colleagues, I felt it was sloppy, shallow, boring and pretty offensive. Reduces soldiers to characterless grunts, otherises objectors, and dehumanised the locals. Gross.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2015 17:35
|
|
|
TG-Chrono posted:I just finished watching this film and as an ex-serviceman who struggled with losing colleagues, I felt it was sloppy, shallow, boring and pretty offensive. Reduces soldiers to characterless grunts, otherises objectors, and dehumanised the locals. Gross. The entire military's objective is to dehumanize the locals. As well as the media. The word "insurgent" has been used so greatly in the last 10+ years for that purpose alone. That part is pretty accurate. The movie wasn't about the grunts. It was about Chris Kyle with everyone else being set pieces. Giving everyone else substantial roles and giving them character would have diminished the fact that this is a movie about Chris Kyle. If you want a movie that gives a lot of characters character, watch a Tarantino movie, because you missed the point of this one. I don't know what you mean by otherises objectors because otherise is a made up word.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2015 17:41
|
|
|
Why does a movie about Chris Kyle refuse to deal with Chris Kyle?
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2015 17:45
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:Why does a movie about Chris Kyle refuse to deal with Chris Kyle? In what way?
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2015 17:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 04:23 |
|
|
Cole posted:
http://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/otherize As for the rest, thanks for trying to whitewash my opinion as "you didn't get it".
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2015 17:53
|
|