|
Fangz posted:Are you seriously arguing that creators do not put things in marketing materials and in films to have effects on the likely audience? Blair Witch did too. I guess the filmmakers had a responsibility to be factual with that one too.
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2015 17:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 06:18 |
|
|
Cole posted:Blair Witch did too. I guess the filmmakers had a responsibility to be factual with that one too. So you accept that creators use the concept sometimes to be deceitful to serve some kind of artistic purpose? Thus switching the question to 'what purpose did the deceit in American Sniper serve'? You are treating this idea of 'responsibility to be factual' as a black and white thing, where American Sniper's deviations from fact is no different to say, misspelling his name or giving him the wrong haircut. That is not what everyone is saying at all. What everyone is saying is that AS's status, which is intentionally cultivated as being a factual document, needs to be considered as part of what it aims to achieve. In the same way that Blair Witch's context, as a fake true story, is necessary to its understanding and a factor in its success. You can't just ignore that aspect by saying 'don't be gullible'.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2015 17:46
|
|
|
Fangz posted:You can't just ignore that aspect by saying 'don't be gullible'. Yes I can and that's exactly what I do because that's really what it boils down to.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2015 17:50
|
|
|
Cole posted:Yes I can and that's exactly what I do because that's really what it boils down to. Maybe stop blaming these people for not being as smart as you and start considering why they believe in these things in the first place. Movies like this do nothing to challenge the common narrative (for this film the Iraq war specifically that you yourself have said is wrong). It goes specifically for the comfort zone and telling them what they want to hear. Many of these people haven't branched out of their little comfy worlds to ask questions and why would they, when movies and media like this tell them they are right? Are people taking this movie or any movie(even documentaries) at face value gullible? Yeah. But to sit here on a high horse and not consider the role this sort of media plays in keeping them that way is helping nobody. Febreeze fucked around with this message at 18:29 on Feb 22, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2015 18:27
|
|
|
The movie pretty openly panders to a certain worldview, it's not even a matter of whether you get your information from a movie or not. Why is the defensive reaction to this movie more kneejerk "thank you for your service" stuff instead of any real reflection about PTSD or caring for veterans? I mean, if that's the film he made. The people who like this film like it because it's simple, so it's not like it's pulling some kind of trick, like WOWS. However, it's so drat simple, and yet they all still thank Kyle for his service, say wow, what a hero, and then chastise people who don't join in the thanking. Why is that? What are the smartypants missing?
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2015 18:50
|
|
|
For a much better 2014 movie that explores a troubled vet returning home and wearily encountering highly superficial levels of support from the community, see The Guest.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2015 19:45
|
|
|
Febreeze posted:...Movies like this do nothing to challenge the common narrative.... One thread of the common narrative is that the Iraq War was/is justified, the right thing to do. I don't see how this movie supports that narrative. Kyle goes back to Iraq for tour after tour, and nothing is accomplished, nothing gained, nothing changes.... just more killing and more damaged soldiers returning home to the U. S. It doesn't explicitly ask why we're there but it certainly begs the question.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2015 19:47
|
|
|
Febreeze posted:Movies like this do nothing to challenge the common narrative It also isn't required to do that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2015 20:03
|
|
|
Cole posted:It also isn't required to do that. I submit that it does challenge it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2015 20:06
|
|
|
socketwrencher posted:I submit that it does challenge it. But another poster said that it doesn't, which means iron clad that it doesn't. Unless people have different opinions, and yours just shows that hey, maybe it does change the common narrative for some people.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2015 20:08
|
|
|
Cole posted:But another poster said that it doesn't, which means iron clad that it doesn't. Whether it changes the common narrative for anyone is another point entirely. I believe that most people's opinions of Iraq are set in concrete, and all the facts in the world isn't going to change them.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2015 20:16
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:The movie pretty openly panders to a certain worldview... What world view is this? HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:it's not even a matter of whether you get your information from a movie or not. Why is the defensive reaction to this movie more kneejerk "thank you for your service" stuff instead of any real reflection about PTSD or caring for veterans? I mean, if that's the film he made. Maybe getting people to appreciate and understand what war is and what war does will lead some to reflect on PTSD and veterans and U.S. foreign policy even if they're not talking about it after watching the movie, because acknowledging that your eyes have been opened is also acknowledging your prior blindness. HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:The people who like this film like it because it's simple, so it's not like it's pulling some kind of trick, like WOWS. However, it's so drat simple, and yet they all still thank Kyle for his service, say wow, what a hero, and then chastise people who don't join in the thanking. Why is that? What are the smartypants missing? There are people who are going to support and defend the troops almost regardless of what they do. They may also question why we're in Iraq even if they don't express it, because they don't want it to be misconstrued as not supporting the troops.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2015 21:06
|
|
|
socketwrencher posted:Maybe getting people to appreciate and understand what war is and what war does will lead some to reflect on PTSD and veterans and U.S. foreign policy even if they're not talking about it after watching the movie, because acknowledging that your eyes have been opened is also acknowledging your prior blindness. That's a hopeful way of looking at it, but my main issue is just that everything and everybody in it is a cipher.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2015 21:26
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:That's a hopeful way of looking at it, but my main issue is just that everything and everybody in it is a cipher. I see symbols more than ciphers, and as you alluded to previously, they're simple ones.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2015 21:31
|
|
|
socketwrencher posted:I see symbols more than ciphers, and as you alluded to previously, they're simple ones. I think that's fair, if I thought the film was good in any particular way, my opinion of it would be that charitable.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2015 21:35
|
|
|
It's a pity to use a generic cipher/symbol for your main character when you had such a distinctive nutbag in Chris Kyle.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2015 21:46
|
|
|
socketwrencher posted:
Every American war film since Vietnam has been about the effect of war on the troops, and yet... The problem is that "the troops suffer" becomes a shield against a deeper critique of US foreign policy. It diverts audience attention away from the Cheneys and Rumsfelds to focus on the Chris Kyles, and because the troops are just following orders and have nothing to do with deciding policy, it's unfair to blame them, and it goes on and on and on in an endless loop where nobody is actually held accountable and everyone gets to pat themselves on the back for "supporting the troops." You want to get people to appreciate what war is and does? Then stop sweeping the reality of it under the rug. Do you think your average civilian moviegoer is going to be able to relate to an elite member of a volunteer military more than they would relate to the plight of civilians in wartime? Do you not think that maybe the audience would be more challenged by the concept of hundreds of thousands dead and wounded, lack of basic human needs like food, shelter, and sanitation, families torn apart or wiped out of existence? Maybe that would actually lead to some reflection. If you boil down the sum suffering of the Iraq War to a single soldier freaking out back home, is it really surprising that people aren't being more introspective about the human costs of war? There is nothing in this movie that pulls the audience out of their comfort zone. Nobody is walking into the theater going "man, maybe PTSD isn't such a big deal." The film trots out the blandest, most well-trodden sentiment in the history of war films and doesn't take it a single step further.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2015 21:59
|
|
|
Grizzled Patriarch posted:Do you think your average civilian moviegoer is going to be able to relate to an elite member of a volunteer military more than they would relate to the plight of civilians in wartime? Most US civilians haven't been anywhere near a warzone, so yes?
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2015 22:13
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:I think that's fair, if I thought the film was good in any particular way, my opinion of it would be that charitable. I didn't think that Kyle or the combat was glorified, which I think is a good thing, and the Big Bad American Soldier barging into another country and accomplishing nothing except record kill numbers and coming home broken and defeated is a powerful symbol. "The Legend" is also an interesting concept because Kyle's exploits will be remembered not just by his fellow soldiers but by the Iraqis (and the rest of the world), which raises the troubling notion of carryover and blowback. The Legend will live on just as our invasion and destruction will not disappear from consciousness when our troops are pulled out. I think it's appropriate that the film is so polarizing, and good that it's reaching such a large audience. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are kind of old news by now, background noise that not many seem to be thinking or talking about, and the film gets it back into conversations. There's also the hope that younger people whose minds are still open may see it and come away with a different perspective on war than those who just see it as a cool story of a badass sniper.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2015 22:13
|
|
|
Snowman_McK posted:It's a pity to use a generic cipher/symbol for your main character when you had such a distinctive nutbag in Chris Kyle. A nutbag can be easily dismissed as an outlier, and showing someone having fun killing people seems to be a glorification of war that is not representative of most soldiers' experience.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2015 22:18
|
|
|
Grizzled Patriarch posted:Every American war film since Vietnam has been about the effect of war on the troops, and yet... stop using hollywood to critique foreign policy and you'll be a LOT better off. seriously.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2015 22:21
|
|
|
Cole posted:stop using hollywood to critique foreign policy and you'll be a LOT better off. seriously. You keep saying this without responding to all of the posters pointing out why "just ignore it" is a useless and irresponsible answer to criticism of this film. We get it, you're not gullible enough to buy into what the film is selling. I doubt anyone in this thread is, because the people that are that gullible never bother to discuss the film beyond a surface level or engage in introspection. The problem is a shitload of people (like, literally half of the US population) are that gullible. Just because it didn't have an effect on you doesn't mean that the very real effect it has on others isn't a legitimate concern worthy of criticism. Propaganda wouldn't exist if it didn't work. computer parts posted:Most US civilians haven't been anywhere near a warzone, so yes? I meant more, you know, the civilian part. Since "not being near a warzone" would preclude someone from sympathizing with a soldier overseas too, by your logic. Grizzled Patriarch fucked around with this message at 22:32 on Feb 22, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2015 22:29
|
|
|
Grizzled Patriarch posted:You keep saying this without responding to all of the posters pointing out why "just ignore it" is a useless and irresponsible answer to criticism of this film. We get it, you're not gullible enough to buy into what the film is selling. I doubt anyone in this thread is, because the people that are that gullible never bother to discuss the film beyond a surface level or engage in introspection. The problem is a shitload of people (like, literally half of the US population) are that gullible. Just because it didn't have an effect on you doesn't mean that the very real effect it has on others isn't a legitimate concern worthy of criticism. Propaganda wouldn't exist if it didn't work. That isn't a criticism of the movie, that is a criticism of the people who watch the movie.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2015 22:30
|
|
|
Cole posted:That isn't a criticism of the movie, that is a criticism of the people who watch the movie. The two aren't mutually exclusive.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2015 22:35
|
|
|
Grizzled Patriarch posted:Every American war film since Vietnam has been about the effect of war on the troops, and yet... I suspect that Eastwood's target audience is not interested in, nor would they be influenced by, a straight-on, deeper critique of US foreign policy. A lot of commentary and analysis is available, and there's a reason that Bill Moyers and Amy Goodman and Chris Hedges et al draw relatively small numbers of viewers/listeners/readers- the only people following them are already members of that particular choir. My guess is that the real nuts and bolts of foreign policy- meaning the bloodshed and money- is too far removed from people's lives to matter so much. Drone strike kills 12 civilians? Hey, I can't even find Afghanistan on a map. You need to put a human face on it, and it better be an American one. Grizzled Patriarch posted:You want to get people to appreciate what war is and does? Then stop sweeping the reality of it under the rug. Do you think your average civilian moviegoer is going to be able to relate to an elite member of a volunteer military more than they would relate to the plight of civilians in wartime? Yes, especially when that elite soldier is not shown as being superhuman after all and the plight of civilians would be civilians in foreign lands. Grizzled Patriarch posted:Do you not think that maybe the audience would be more challenged by the concept of hundreds of thousands dead and wounded, lack of basic human needs like food, shelter, and sanitation, families torn apart or wiped out of existence? Maybe that would actually lead to some reflection. It hasn't so far. Those stories and photos and videos have been available since the invasion in 2003. Grizzled Patriarch posted:If you boil down the sum suffering of the Iraq War to a single soldier freaking out back home, is it really surprising that people aren't being more introspective about the human costs of war? I think it's hard to gauge the level of introspection/reflection. Sometimes seeds are planted that may not come to fruition until further down the road. Perspective is an organic process. Grizzled Patriarch posted:There is nothing in this movie that pulls the audience out of their comfort zone. Nobody is walking into the theater going "man, maybe PTSD isn't such a big deal." The film trots out the blandest, most well-trodden sentiment in the history of war films and doesn't take it a single step further. I think a war movie that doesn't show a single positive thing is different and interesting. I agree that it doesn't take it further into telling us what to think. It's saying, "Look."
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2015 22:43
|
|
|
socketwrencher posted:I suspect that Eastwood's target audience is not interested in, nor would they be influenced by, a straight-on, deeper critique of US foreign policy. A lot of commentary and analysis is available, and there's a reason that Bill Moyers and Amy Goodman and Chris Hedges et al draw relatively small numbers of viewers/listeners/readers- the only people following them are already members of that particular choir. My guess is that the real nuts and bolts of foreign policy- meaning the bloodshed and money- is too far removed from people's lives to matter so much. Drone strike kills 12 civilians? Hey, I can't even find Afghanistan on a map. You need to put a human face on it, and it better be an American one. If you are going to whitewash events and fabricate the life and deeds of Chris Kyle just to make the film more palatable to Western audiences, why even bother making the film? How is this film challenging the audience? It's not saying anything new - every sentiment in this film has been expressed much more cogently and powerfully in other films. It's not an anti-war film just because it doesn't say "war is good". quote:Yes, especially when that elite soldier is not shown as being superhuman after all and the plight of civilians would be civilians in foreign lands. Except he still pretty much is superhuman. He has no flaws. He's presented as a noble warrior haunted by his sacrifice, which is not only a grossly glamorized depiction of Kyle, but also one that turns him into a symbol instead of a human being. The film pits him as the Ur-Patriot, contrasting him with a soldier that dies because he stopped believing in the war and his brother, who the audience is meant to feel contempt for because he doesn't want to be in Iraq. His sniper duel with Mustafa is a get up and cheer moment, the victory of an imaginary hero against an imaginary villain. The film goes out of its way to suggest that killing the insurgent sniper might "win the war." It's absolutely absurd. quote:It hasn't so far. Those stories and photos and videos have been available since the invasion in 2003. "Available" is quite a bit different from "part of common discourse." Most people have never seen those pictures and videos because they don't get shown on the news. For a while the networks were banned from even showing footage of soldiers' coffins returning home, and they sure as poo poo weren't ever depicting the true scope of civilian suffering. You can find them if you dig for them, but trying to place those photos and videos side-by-side with the narrative that the overwhelming majority of news and media outlets pushed is a false equivalency. quote:I think it's hard to gauge the level of introspection/reflection. Sometimes seeds are planted that may not come to fruition until further down the road. Perspective is an organic process. This is meaningless handwaving. If there wasn't enough introspection between the aftermath of Vietnam to the beginning of OIF / OEF, then it's pretty goddamn useless. "Coming to fruition" when you're 90 and hooked up to a respirator isn't doing anyone any good. quote:I think a war movie that doesn't show a single positive thing is different and interesting. I agree that it doesn't take it further into telling us what to think. It's saying, "Look." It tells the audience what to think by deliberating framing the film in a misinformed context. And so what? Look at what? One soldier struggling with PTSD after killing a bunch of people that the film goes out of its way to dehumanize? What is there to take from that that isn't common sense?
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2015 23:11
|
|
|
Grizzled Patriarch posted:How is this film challenging the audience? Who cares? Seriously, exactly why is it so important that the movie fall in line with something you want it to? It's Hollywood. I'll bring up Blair Witch again. Should people use that to make an informed decision about camping in the woods? Because at the end of the day, it is exactly the same thing American Sniper is: a movie. And 90% of Blair Witch's marketing was this is based on a true story. Cole fucked around with this message at 00:13 on Feb 23, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2015 00:11
|
|
|
I think that when a film ends with real life footage of its subject's funeral, it becomes harder to hide behind the "it's just a movie" defense.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2015 00:16
|
|
|
Alfred P. Pseudonym posted:"it's just a movie" then what was i watching
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2015 00:17
|
|
|
Cole posted:then what was i watching You seem intent on quashing discussion of the movie's politics even though a movie made on this topic is, and arguably all movies are, inherently political.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2015 00:19
|
|
|
Alfred P. Pseudonym posted:You seem intent on quashing discussion of the movie's politics even though a movie made on this topic is, and arguably all movies are, inherently political. That's fine and dandy. A movie can be about politics. But if you watch it and you're so influenced by it that you can't discern the difference between Hollywood and real life, the problem is not with the movie. People seem to be defending ignorance. Watching a movie, any movie, that doesn't fall under a documentary title (and even then), even those that are "based on" real events and getting your political ideologies from it is lazy ignorance. Can it influence you do to more research about it? Yeah, but don't ask me to accept people being lazy about it. Think about those news stories that people post on Facebook that are solely to smear Obama. Most of them aren't true, but they are presented as legitimate news sources (more legitimate than this movie, in fact) and anyone who takes them as fact without doing any research is lazy and ignorant. This movie is the same thing as those news stories, it's just a movie and not a news story. Cole fucked around with this message at 00:30 on Feb 23, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2015 00:25
|
|
|
Cole posted:That's fine and dandy. A movie can be about politics. But if you watch it and you're so influenced by it that you can't discern the difference between Hollywood and real life, the problem is not with the movie. People seem to be defending ignorance. Watching a movie, any movie, that doesn't fall under a documentary title (and even then), even those that are "based on" real events and getting your political ideologies from it is lazy ignorance. Can it influence you do to more research about it? Yeah, but don't ask me to accept people being lazy about it. The American populace, by and large, is lazy and ignorant.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2015 00:30
|
|
|
Alfred P. Pseudonym posted:The American populace, by and large, is lazy and ignorant. Right, and that is not the movie's fault. So blaming anyone for being influenced by the movie should rest solely on the individual that was influenced by it, not by the source that put it out there. Especially in Hollywood, the land of make believe.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2015 00:31
|
|
|
If you want to fall back on "hey man it's just a movie", the ground is even shakier, because the movie itself is nothing special, unless you've never seen one other war movie before.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2015 00:33
|
|
|
Fiction has historically played a very important role in influencing public opinion, for better or worse. Think Uncle Tom's Cabin, The Jungle, etc. It's always going to be A Thing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2015 00:36
|
|
|
Cole posted:Because at the end of the day, it is exactly the same thing American Sniper is: a movie. Yeah, but The Blair Witch Project is a good movie.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2015 00:37
|
|
|
Cole posted:Who cares? Seriously, exactly why is it so important that the movie fall in line with something you want it to? It's Hollywood. I'll bring up Blair Witch again. Should people use that to make an informed decision about camping in the woods? Because at the end of the day, it is exactly the same thing American Sniper is: a movie. Blair Witch wasn't trying to reframe a very real conflict that is still a part of the public consciousness in pursuit of an agenda that implicitly justifies a war that left hundreds of thousands of real people dead and maimed. The fact that you can't see a difference is pretty troubling. "Based on a True Story" has different implications when the film is ostensibly about a real person's real exploits in a real war. The two films aren't even remotely comparable. You seem very intent on shifting goalposts, though. Criticism of the film is invalid because "you shouldn't be gullible," and then pointing out how the film is effective propaganda specifically because so many voting members of the population are that gullible is "criticizing the audience instead of the movie." Is preying on ignorance not irresponsible or unethical when a potential outcome is support for further conflict? Calling people out for being ignorant doesn't get rid of their ignorance. In an ideal world people would do research and get news from multiple reliable sources, yada, yada. Guess what? It doesn't happen. If you read more than 3 news articles this month, you read more news that 96 percent of the US. What good does it do to place all discussion of this film into an ineffectual holding pattern? Why don't you try actually addressing criticism or letting us know what you actually think about the movie instead of coming in here to rip a fart and kickflip off into the horizon? Grizzled Patriarch fucked around with this message at 00:45 on Feb 23, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2015 00:41
|
|
|
Cole posted:That's fine and dandy. A movie can be about politics. But if you watch it and you're so influenced by it that you can't discern the difference between Hollywood and real life, the problem is not with the movie. People seem to be defending ignorance. Watching a movie, any movie, that doesn't fall under a documentary title (and even then), even those that are "based on" real events and getting your political ideologies from it is lazy ignorance. Can it influence you do to more research about it? Yeah, but don't ask me to accept people being lazy about it. I despise American Sniper because it's (to all intents and purposes) objectively ethically repugnant. In uncritically presenting the military as tortured heroes it contributes to a mindset that actively makes the world an awful place to live in and encourages death. I'm not saying it's the sole reason for atrocities, but this film (and others like it) will play a contributing part in future horrors.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2015 00:43
|
|
|
Cole posted:That's fine and dandy. A movie can be about politics. But if you watch it and you're so influenced by it that you can't discern the difference between Hollywood and real life, the problem is not with the movie. People seem to be defending ignorance. Watching a movie, any movie, that doesn't fall under a documentary title (and even then), even those that are "based on" real events and getting your political ideologies from it is lazy ignorance. Can it influence you do to more research about it? Yeah, but don't ask me to accept people being lazy about it. Posting fake news stories to deceive people is morally wrong even if it's possible to see through them if you do the research. Knowingly doing so makes you a scumbag. The likes of Fox News are scum. This isn't about defending ignorance at all.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2015 02:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 06:18 |
|
|
Cole posted:That's fine and dandy. A movie can be about politics. But if you watch it and you're so influenced by it that you can't discern the difference between Hollywood and real life, the problem is not with the movie. People seem to be defending ignorance. Watching a movie, any movie, that doesn't fall under a documentary title (and even then), even those that are "based on" real events and getting your political ideologies from it is lazy ignorance. Can it influence you do to more research about it? Yeah, but don't ask me to accept people being lazy about it. No one's going to watch this movie and have their opinion entirely changed. That's called "The Magic Bullet" effect in communications studies, and it's been debunked. What is the problem is a saturation effect. That connection got mentioned over and over, between Iraq and Al Qaeda, and so people accepted (it also got repeated in news stories, and I use the word news quite loosely) American Sniper adding its voice to that senseless repetition of that connection, in the year 2015, while emphasising over and over that it is based on a true story, is irresponsible at best.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2015 03:20
|
|