|
TG-Chrono posted:http://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/otherize http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/otherize what if you can find the definition of otherize in a legitimate dictionary i'll respect what you're saying. otherwise you're gonna have to reword it so i don't immediately think you're just kind of dumb.
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2015 17:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 12:30 |
|
|
Cole posted:In what way? Well, his actual biography is full of poo poo that was clearly just made up, and the movie just ignore the fact that he's a huge dumb liar.. But the movie also invents things that contradict the actually believable parts of his biography too, and in ways that make him like a much worse person. He says he'd never shoot kids, for instance, which he does in the movie, and he said he respected the dead guy he talks poo poo about in the movie.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2015 18:06
|
|
|
sean10mm posted:Well, his actual biography is full of poo poo that was clearly just made up, and the movie just ignore the fact that he's a huge dumb liar.. But the movie also invents things that contradict the actually believable parts of his biography too, and in ways that make him like a much worse person. He says he'd never shoot kids, for instance, which he does in the movie, and he said he respected the dead guy he talks poo poo about in the movie. I was being genuine in my question. I bought his book but haven't been able to read it yet due to schoolwork taking priority. I'll take a look at it though. For what it's worth, though, I think the movie did a fairly good job of showing how war can break someone down, and that's all I am commenting on. I've read several biographical pieces on the guy, good opinions of him and bad opinions, and that's where I get my source of information about Chris Kyle from.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2015 18:08
|
|
|
Cole posted:http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/otherize Otherizing would be when Kyle had a disapproving look on his face when his brother said "gently caress this place" or said that the other soldier (I can't remember which one because every non-Chris Kyle character in this movie was a cardboard cutout) deserved to die because he questioned the point of going to war. But if you want to get hung up on the use of "otherize" then replace it with, I dunno, denigrate or something similar.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2015 18:08
|
|
|
Alfred P. Pseudonym posted:Otherizing would be when Kyle had a disapproving look on his face when his brother said "gently caress this place" or said that the other soldier (I can't remember which one because every non-Chris Kyle character in this movie was a cardboard cutout) deserved to die because he questioned the point of going to war. I didn't think it was him disapproving. It was more "holy poo poo, the war has hosed my brother up."
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2015 18:09
|
|
|
Cole posted:In what way? I've noticed that when anything gets near who he was, it's deflected as "well, it's about what it's like to be in war", so his thoughts, actions and feelings can be papered over and genericized. We can reduce his characterization to war stress being something that helps him push a good set of deadlifts. The most heated he gets is calling one of his comrades a pussy when he posthumously expresses his true feelings, which is also crucial - anyone who hasn't been in it can't understand, anyone who disagrees is no better than the enemy. The rest of the world is flat and uniform, full of people scared to do what's right, whether that's expressing anything other than total support or fighting for an unrighteous cause. But this doesn't also mean Kyle is complex, because that would be bad. Only he can properly react to the dangerous situation he's in, and any other appeal to ethics or community is illegitimate or degenerate somehow, because it may carry the germ of some kind of criticism. So who is he? A soldier, but not all soldiers (the rest are props). A man, but not all men (the rest make no sacrifices, or make unworthy sacrifices). A trauma survivor, but the good kind, because he keeps his mouth shut and bears it up. The movie has him standing for something, and that's what he stands for. That's why we thank him for his service, because being a soldier is just doing a job and don't worry about looking too closely at anything else.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2015 18:12
|
|
|
Cole posted:I was being genuine in my question. I bought his book but haven't been able to read it yet due to schoolwork taking priority. I'll take a look at it though. The point is that the movie doesn't try to deal with the actual guy, either his good parts or his bad parts. His hard-and-fast "no dead kids" rule might have had interesting real implications, like getting his friends killed, because war is full of lose-lose poo poo like that. But instead he's a martyr to Doing the Hard Things Other People Won't without reference to if any of it did anybody anywhere any good. They made a monument instead of a memorial, a martyr instead of a tragedy. They used honest elements to be lying fucks.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2015 18:16
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:I've noticed that when anything gets near who he was, it's deflected as "well, it's about what it's like to be in war", so his thoughts, actions and feelings can be papered over and genericized. We can reduce his characterization to war stress being something that helps him push a good set of deadlifts. The most heated he gets is calling one of his comrades a pussy when he posthumously expresses his true feelings, which is also crucial - anyone who hasn't been in it can't understand, anyone who disagrees is no better than the enemy. The rest of the world is flat and uniform, full of people scared to do what's right, whether that's expressing anything other than total support or fighting for an unrighteous cause. I'm welcome to criticism. Sometimes criticism is the only way to let people know they are hosed up. Chris Kyle never got that (like I said, though, I've only read biographical information and not his actual book). Instead, he got propped up as a hero because of his kill count, and everything negative about him got put to the wayside. That is actually a very fundamentally flawed part of our military. Exposing it just isn't part of this movie because that wasn't the movie's objective. At the end of the day it's still Hollywood, and an anti-troop movie wouldn't make a studio much money right now. The movie shows how war breaks someone down, but, and I hate using this trope, unless you've seen it for yourself or lived it, you may not get that point. And as I said earlier, if this movie helps shed light on PTSD and how hosed up war can make people, then it served a good purpose, regardless of how it did it. Unfortunately it comes with people who have the message fly clear over their head (which is the majority) and think it's just American chest thumping.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2015 18:19
|
|
|
I'm saying straight up that the movie marginalizes PTSD by treating war as a lamentable chore at worst, and it takes a real man to be up to the task. That is a viewpoint, to be sure, but it gets around to it in the weasliest way possible.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2015 18:28
|
|
|
It's The Passion of the Longinus, or the real-life LOL NO travails of the Roman Empire's greatest side-stabber and javelin-er of barbarian looters, and how he bore his many sufferings with manly stoicism right up until the end. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2015 18:41
|
|
|
I would not go so far as to call him the American Horst Wessel, but it's not looking good.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2015 18:43
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:I would not go so far as to call him the American Horst Wessel, but it's not looking good. Well to be fair, Wessel knew as well as anybody that pimping ain't easy. Or am I misunderstanding your point? 
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2015 18:49
|
|
|
Cole posted:I'm welcome to criticism. Sometimes criticism is the only way to let people know they are hosed up. Chris Kyle never got that (like I said, though, I've only read biographical information and not his actual book). Instead, he got propped up as a hero because of his kill count, and everything negative about him got put to the wayside. That is actually a very fundamentally flawed part of our military. Exposing it just isn't part of this movie because that wasn't the movie's objective. At the end of the day it's still Hollywood, and an anti-troop movie wouldn't make a studio much money right now. The movie shows how war breaks someone down, but, and I hate using this trope, unless you've seen it for yourself or lived it, you may not get that point. I didn't serve, but I was raised by a father suffering from PTSD and I've had to deal with a cousin attempting suicide after coming back from his last deployment. The way this film treats PTSD feels like an afterthought (which is probably is, since Kyle makes no mention of it whatsoever in his book). It almost feels predatory, if that makes sense, like the film is using PTSD as a shield to deflect any criticism of the deeper underlying issues that the film suffers from. Nobody is denying that this film may resonate with some vets, but that doesn't make it an effective anti-war film. In fact, as I mentioned earlier, it really makes it a pretty weak one because the people that you actually need to communicate an anti-war message to are the civilians, not the people that have been there and experienced it firsthand. The people that have been there and seen combat understand how terrible war is (well, except for people like Kyle, I guess), so this film is just preaching to the choir. 99% of the population is insulated from the experiences of a soldier and will never be able to relate to it no matter how well-made your film is. Which is why the overwhelming majority of war films fail to convey any actual anti-war sentiment in a way that might effect change. Almost every war film I can think of says the same thing - the only difference is the set dressing. Every contemporary American film involving Iraq / Afghanistan "sheds light on PTSD." I'm pretty sure there is not a single American over the age of 10 who doesn't realize PTSD sucks. American Sniper is a amateurish rehash of any already tired statement that inherently will not resonate with the overwhelming majority of the audience. If the only anti-war message that ever gets any traction is that being a soldier can really gently caress you up, then 99% of the population will go on with their days and say "welp, good thing I wasn't planning on enlisting, I guess" while the 1% that have served will nod their heads and go "yeah, that's true." It's a giant circular holding pattern. This film deserves flak because it's not only doing that, but its doing it while being very disingenuous. It completely fabricates Kyle's character, has a blatantly racist attitude towards the Iraqis (both civilian and insurgent), makes some really sketchy connections between 9/11 and Iraq both as a casus belli and as the reason Kyle joins up (it wasn't) and contributes more to the mythology of the tragically noble warrior than it does to any anti-war perspective. Grizzled Patriarch fucked around with this message at 19:16 on Feb 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2015 19:13
|
|
|
Why assume that it's an ineffective anti-war movie? It felt to me like a pro-war movie.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2015 19:21
|
|
|
sean10mm posted:Well to be fair, Wessel knew as well as anybody that pimping ain't easy. Just that I hate to invoke Godwin's Law in any way but man this is some textbook stuff.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2015 19:31
|
|
|
For the sake of argument I'm willing to believe that Eastwood didn't deliberately set out to make a pro-war film, but at the very least he fell into the trap of glorifying the noble soldier and handwaving away the consequences that war has on a civilian population, which is certainly not a flaw unique to this film. I mean, it's probably an unpopular opinion, but I think Hurt Locker has a lot of the same problems as this film does, it's just not quite as overt and the film itself is actually well-crafted. I think Eastwood's (and Kyle's) personal politics are much more vile though, so that on top of of everything else, American Sniper is pushing a pretty hosed up agenda. Honestly it gets to the point where it's hard to disentangle the concept of "pro-war," since that's a pretty loaded term. Like I think the film makes a very deliberate attempt to whitewash US involvement in Iraq and provide some kind of retrospective justification for it, partially by hiding behind the troops (which is pretty despicable and wildly irresponsible, imo), but I don't think that the film is saying "war is good." So I don't know if it's necessarily fair to call it pro-war, but it's also not anti-war - at best it pays shallow lip service to the safest, most trite antiwar statement possible. It might just be a lovely movie with ugly revisionist politics.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2015 19:43
|
|
|
Grizzled Patriarch posted:For the sake of argument I'm willing to believe that Eastwood didn't deliberately set out to make a pro-war film, but at the very least he fell into the trap of glorifying the noble soldier and handwaving away the consequences that war has on a civilian population, which is certainly not a flaw unique to this film. I mean, it's probably an unpopular opinion, but I think Hurt Locker has a lot of the same problems as this film does, it's just not quite as overt and the film itself is actually well-crafted. I think Eastwood's (and Kyle's) personal politics are much more vile though, so that on top of of everything else, American Sniper is pushing a pretty hosed up agenda. Pretty much this. If this movie resonates with you, understand that it's designed to explicitly. Lies can feel stronger than the truth, especially when the lie tries to make a pretty terrible person palatable. The reason the movie is clearly not "Anti-war" is because it made it more palatable. The real Chris Kyle portrayed even semi-accurately to his own memoir would be enough to turn most people off and go "Oh poo poo, maybe some people really do just love killing people".
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2015 03:39
|
|
|
mugrim posted:"Oh poo poo, maybe some people really do just love killing people". yeah, 90% of people who serves in combat arms. chris kyle enjoying it doesn't make him a special snowflake, it makes him your average dude who went to war. the person who is in a combat arms job who doesn't enjoy it is actually the special snowflake.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2015 04:35
|
|
|
Grizzled Patriarch posted:Like I think the film makes a very deliberate attempt to whitewash US involvement in Iraq and provide some kind of retrospective justification for it, partially by hiding behind the troops (which is pretty despicable and wildly irresponsible, imo), but I don't think that the film is saying "war is good." So I don't know if it's necessarily fair to call it pro-war, but it's also not anti-war - at best it pays shallow lip service to the safest, most trite antiwar statement possible. It might just be a lovely movie with ugly revisionist politics. it doesn't need to whitewash anything, the film is made by and for people who ten years later still haven't figured out that iraq was a gigantic waste of time and money. it's more like The Passion of Chris Kyle than military apologetics
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2015 12:17
|
|
|
Grizzled Patriarch posted:Honestly it gets to the point where it's hard to disentangle the concept of "pro-war," since that's a pretty loaded term. Like I think the film makes a very deliberate attempt to whitewash US involvement in Iraq and provide some kind of retrospective justification for it, partially by hiding behind the troops (which is pretty despicable and wildly irresponsible, imo), but I don't think that the film is saying "war is good." So I don't know if it's necessarily fair to call it pro-war, but it's also not anti-war - at best it pays shallow lip service to the safest, most trite antiwar statement possible. It might just be a lovely movie with ugly revisionist politics. I agree about the film not saying that war is good. I think it's trying to say that war is necessary, and that civilians should have a very deep appreciation for what people who serve in the military endure on their behalf. That it doesn't question why this particular war is necessary, except in passing nods which felt like they were inserted to deflect pro-war criticism rather than truly delve into the complex nature of war in general and Iraq in particular, along with other flaws previously mentioned in this thread, is why the movie didn't work for me. My impression is that Eastwood, like my grandfather, thinks that people don't really understand the brutality and horror of war, and thus don't fully grasp and appreciate the immensity of the sacrifices being made for them. They seem to feel intense scorn and disdain for the ignorance. What they seem to miss is that their skewed approach to expressing their sentiments, which in many cases may be valid- I don't think you can truly know what war is unless you've been there- may have the opposite of their intended effect: it may lead to people feeling less support for the troops, not more. socketwrencher fucked around with this message at 18:53 on Feb 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2015 18:49
|
|
|
Which is doubly angering, since Eastwood dodged ever going to war. If memory served he schmoozed his way out of it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2015 00:01
|
|
|
Snowman_McK posted:Which is doubly angering, since Eastwood dodged ever going to war. If memory served he schmoozed his way out of it. Who knows, maybe there's some guilt involved. Regardless, I don't think it invalidates the intention behind the movie. I read it as less propaganda and more public service announcement.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2015 03:13
|
|
|
You know what else is an anti-war movie? The Birth of a Nation.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2015 04:25
|
|
|
socketwrencher posted:Who knows, maybe there's some guilt involved. Regardless, I don't think it invalidates the intention behind the movie. I read it as less propaganda and more public service announcement. If you're correct, it's "You don't know what it was like over there" from someone who never went there and who worked actively to avoid it. Finding out Eastwood is kind of a lovely person has damaged some of his earlier films. Gran Torino becomes two hours of a wealthy old white man explaining to a marginalised minority why political correctness is bad.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2015 09:04
|
|
|
K. Waste posted:You know what else is an anti-war movie? The Birth of a Nation. I would've said Gone with the Wind but yeah same thing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2015 10:39
|
|
|
K. Waste posted:You know what else is an anti-war movie? The Birth of a Nation. Would you say it's also anti-racism?
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2015 17:59
|
|
|
Snowman_McK posted:If you're correct, it's "You don't know what it was like over there" from someone who never went there and who worked actively to avoid it. I think it's possible for someone to be sincerely dedicated to supporting say, reducing hunger in Africa without having been there. My sense from reading interviews is that Eastwood has been around and talked with veterans on more than a superficial level. Combined with his right-wing sensibility, it's understandable that he's so passionate about paying tribute to veterans and trying to raise people's appreciation of their efforts and sacrifice. Tom Hanks seems to have been similarly affected from his experiences with veterans and astronauts.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2015 18:15
|
|
|
socketwrencher posted:Would you say it's also anti-racism? Despite his reputation as a racist, D. W. Griffith was fairly liberal for a WASP. In addition to The Birth of a Nation, he produced the equally historically libelous Martyrs of the Alamo, which critically features as its only Black character the dutiful sidekick of one of the white heroes. Don't get me wrong, Griffith's racism was right there on the surface, but in his time the conception of history that he presented was already pretty broadly accepted by dominant white culture. When Griffith depicted the overtaking of the south by an army of Black mongrels, he did not think what he was doing was racist because, as far as he was concerned, that was an artistically accurate way of depicting the sudden freedom of slaves from bondage to 'civilized' culture. But he never solidifies, much as Dixon did (though friends, Griffith heavily reduced the racism of Dixon's novel), the exclusive evil of Black people. The Black characters which ultimately prove to be evil are "carpetbaggers" and union soldiers and corrupt politicians, while there are always Black characters who defend the whites. Like many people today, Griffith would have rationalized the clear, condescending racism of his film via the insistence that his evil characters are evil because they are evil, not because they are Black. Meanwhile, in Broken Blossoms, Griffith depicted slum-dwelling whites, Blacks (whites in blackface), and other races intermingling in an equal, tragic lot, depending on booze and each other's company to mitigate their sorrow. Even the very plot of that film is predicated on how a well-meaning Buddhist ends up impoverished and alone because of the close-mindedness of Western society to other races and other ways of thinking. The Birth of a Nation can't really be called anti-racist, but Griffith is more motivated by populist sentiments of the individual will versus the state apparatus and cultural prejudices. These ideas frequently expressed themselves in terms of isolationism (Martys of the Alamo), but also pro-speech (Broken Blossoms) and anti-war (The Birth of a Nation).
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2015 18:27
|
|
|
K. Waste posted:Despite his reputation as a racist, D. W. Griffith was fairly liberal for a WASP. In addition to The Birth of a Nation, he produced the equally historically libelous Martyrs of the Alamo, which critically features as its only Black character the dutiful sidekick of one of the white heroes. Don't get me wrong, Griffith's racism was right there on the surface, but in his time the conception of history that he presented was already pretty broadly accepted by dominant white culture. When Griffith depicted the overtaking of the south by an army of Black mongrels, he did not think what he was doing was racist because, as far as he was concerned, that was an artistically accurate way of depicting the sudden freedom of slaves from bondage to 'civilized' culture. But he never solidifies, much as Dixon did (though friends, Griffith heavily reduced the racism of Dixon's novel), the exclusive evil of Black people. The Black characters which ultimately prove to be evil are "carpetbaggers" and union soldiers and corrupt politicians, while there are always Black characters who defend the whites. Like many people today, Griffith would have rationalized the clear, condescending racism of his film via the insistence that his evil characters are evil because they are evil, not because they are Black. Meanwhile, in Broken Blossoms, Griffith depicted slum-dwelling whites, Blacks (whites in blackface), and other races intermingling in an equal, tragic lot, depending on booze and each other's company to mitigate their sorrow. Even the very plot of that film is predicated on how a well-meaning Buddhist ends up impoverished and alone because of the close-mindedness of Western society to other races and other ways of thinking. The Birth of a Nation can't really be called anti-racist, but Griffith is more motivated by populist sentiments of the individual will versus the state apparatus and cultural prejudices. These ideas frequently expressed themselves in terms of isolationism (Martys of the Alamo), but also pro-speech (Broken Blossoms) and anti-war (The Birth of a Nation). Interesting. I haven't seen it in so long and now want to see it again. http://www.newyorker.com/culture/richard-brody/the-worst-thing-about-birth-of-a-nation-is-how-good-it-is
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2015 18:40
|
|
|
Luminous Obscurity posted:Edit: So basically make The Wire into a war-movie, is what I'm saying. Are you joking here? Because that was made, by David Simon, and called Generation Kill, and was about how hosed up Iraq was, and hits on half of the points you were talking about (but focuses more on how middle management incompetence makes things even worse).
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2015 19:16
|
|
|
Darko posted:Are you joking here? Because that was made, by David Simon, and called Generation Kill, and was about how hosed up Iraq was, and hits on half of the points you were talking about (but focuses more on how middle management incompetence makes things even worse). It's a great show, and the book is excellent too.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2015 21:45
|
|
|
socketwrencher posted:Interesting. I haven't seen it in so long and now want to see it again. I wouldn't even go that far in praising the dramatic effect of Griffith's film despite his obvious aesthetic genius. Like, he was his era's James Cameron, an architect of simplistic moral fables whose vision was just bigger and louder than everybody else. It's really not that tremendous of a film, especially in regards to many of his earlier and later works. There's a reason why film and sociology students alike usually only see the second half of the film. On its own, the film is so tremendously boring with the exception of a few truly dynamic and revolutionary sequences that you get the feeling that you're really not watching something that was much more dramatically unique at the time it was made. And, indeed, it wasn't very unique.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2015 23:01
|
|
|
So...this: https://www.thehill.com/video/in-the-news/232357-eastwoods-surprising-response-to-american-sniper-criticism That's a shocker.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 15:40
|
|
|
Crain posted:So...this: https://www.thehill.com/video/in-the-news/232357-eastwoods-surprising-response-to-american-sniper-criticism It sounds like the studio had an idea for a film and needed a body to put it together.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 15:42
|
|
|
K. Waste posted:I wouldn't even go that far in praising the dramatic effect of Griffith's film despite his obvious aesthetic genius. Like, he was his era's James Cameron, an architect of simplistic moral fables whose vision was just bigger and louder than everybody else. It's really not that tremendous of a film, especially in regards to many of his earlier and later works. There's a reason why film and sociology students alike usually only see the second half of the film. On its own, the film is so tremendously boring with the exception of a few truly dynamic and revolutionary sequences that you get the feeling that you're really not watching something that was much more dramatically unique at the time it was made. And, indeed, it wasn't very unique. I appreciate you sharing your perspective. The New Yorker article came to mind because I remembered reading it when Django Unchained came out. My impression is that Birth of a Nation was quite an event at its time and that its impact and historical significance may be more interesting than the film itself. I don't recall it being boring but rather sensationalistic, but that's just going off of hazy memories.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 19:15
|
|
|
computer parts posted:It sounds like the studio had an idea for a film and needed a body to put it together. I wonder if Eastwood wanted a more honest portrayal of Kyle but was overruled.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 19:18
|
|
|
I think you guys are reading a little too much into Clint Eastwood delivering a one-liner. He's not precisely known for lengthy responses or melting under the pressure of people being critical of him. Him saying his critics (I don't believe for a second some TMZ reporter asked him about it in a coherent or journalistically appropriate manner) are "right" before jumping into a car and speeding off is, like, definitive Eastwood.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 19:22
|
|
|
K. Waste posted:I think you guys are reading a little too much into Clint Eastwood delivering a one-liner. He's not precisely known for lengthy responses or melting under the pressure of people being critical of him. Him saying his critics (I don't believe for a second some TMZ reporter asked him about it in a coherent or journalistically appropriate manner) are "right" before jumping into a car and speeding off is, like, definitive Eastwood. It's just idle speculation, I'm not giving it much weight at all. From: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/26/clint-eastwood-american-sniper-anti-war_n_6547068.html ""The biggest anti-war statement any film" can make is to show "the fact of what [war] does to the family and the people who have to go back into civilian life like Chris Kyle did," Eastwood said, per The Hollywood Reporter. From: http://www.thestar.com/entertainment/movies/2015/01/13/think_before_you_shoot_clint_eastwood_says_of_war_interview.html “This picture was interesting, because I’m seeing it from the point of a person who was sort of an American hero, as far as his ability to be this ultra-sniper. And his family and his beliefs were very strong about defending the country and defending the guys who are defending the country, as a sort of an oversight warrior. It was an important story, but you have to embrace his philosophy if you’re going to tell a story about him.”
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 20:10
|
|
|
K. Waste posted:I think you guys are reading a little too much into Clint Eastwood delivering a one-liner. He's not precisely known for lengthy responses or melting under the pressure of people being critical of him. Him saying his critics (I don't believe for a second some TMZ reporter asked him about it in a coherent or journalistically appropriate manner) are "right" before jumping into a car and speeding off is, like, definitive Eastwood. Yeah, how's it sound like anything other than sarcasm?
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 20:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 12:30 |
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:Yeah, how's it sound like anything other than sarcasm? I suspect that Eastwood is aware that Kyle is portrayed more sympathetically in the movie than the way he came across in the book.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 21:19
|
|