|
Do people not understand how lots of Americans ended up enlisting into the military after their patriotism was stirred by the events of 9/11? Pretty common shared experience. The Nightly Show's episode on the film had a US sniper admit that is what made him sign up himself, and talks candidly about his experiences killing people and struggling to adjust to society after four or five tours in Middle East wars. And it's not loving Hollywood that dehumanizes people in war, it is war itself. You think you'd feel any different about some groups of people after spending years overseas watching men of another language and culture kill your buddies while you kill them? I'm sure some vets don't break bad that way but many others struggle with their experiences, carrying hate and regret over all the suffering they and their comrades endured. I think it is missing the forest for the trees to say depicting racism, hatred, patriotism, and false political narratives is the same thing as endorsing them. Look buddy, we invaded Iraq, and killed tons of people. This movie is depicting those events, from the perspective of a particular American sniper who wrote a best selling memoir about it. HBOs The Pacific is a never ending stream of vile dehumanizing things and words by US Marines calling Japanese people savages. Because that's how people loving talk in war! So much moral superiority in people who don't seem to understand what they are criticising.
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2015 03:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 11:17 |
|
|
Smoothrich posted:Do people not understand how lots of Americans ended up enlisting into the military after their patriotism was stirred by the events of 9/11? Pretty common shared experience. The Nightly Show's episode on the film had a US sniper admit that is what made him sign up himself, and talks candidly about his experiences killing people and struggling to adjust to society after four or five tours in Middle East wars. quote:I think it is missing the forest for the trees to say depicting racism, hatred, patriotism, and false political narratives is the same thing as endorsing them. Look buddy, we invaded Iraq, and killed tons of people. This movie is depicting those events, from the perspective of a particular American sniper who wrote a best selling memoir about it. The movie actually got rid of his perspective/voice. Or at least cleaned it up to the point that it could have been anybody's
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2015 04:06
|
|
|
Smoothrich posted:Do people not understand how lots of Americans ended up enlisting into the military after their patriotism was stirred by the events of 9/11? Pretty common shared experience. The Nightly Show's episode on the film had a US sniper admit that is what made him sign up himself, and talks candidly about his experiences killing people and struggling to adjust to society after four or five tours in Middle East wars. This is the kind of stuff people are talking about though. Chris Kyle didn't enlist because of 9/11, though the film sure as poo poo wants you to think he did! He explicitly admits to joining up because of the embassy bombings in Tanzania / Kenya. Small detail, but it's an example of the kind of tiny, deliberate ways the film attempts to reframe the context of the actual historical events being portrayed to better fit their narrative. And then people who didn't actually read the source material or do any research on the subject parrot it back as truth. War is dehumanizing, but a film can explore dehumanization without actively engaging in it itself. Plenty of legitimately good war films do that, actually! Much better films than this one! And yes, depicting a false political narrative is, in this case, endorsing it, because the film is fabricating events out of of whole cloth and deliberately misrepresenting the information that is actually in the source material. You don't get to make an imaginary Chris Kyle and then prescribe your lovely politics onto him and pretend that it's okay because "we're just showing it through his eyes, man!" Because no, you aren't. The Chris Kyle of American Sniper is fiction. When you say "We invaded Iraq and killed tons of people," that's leaving out the word "unjustly," which is actually a pretty big deal.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2015 04:13
|
|
|
socketwrencher posted:By removing some of the more disturbing aspects of Kyle's character, perhaps Eastwood was trying to deglorify both Kyle and the war itself. We see Kyle grimly doing his job, and coming back a broken man- hardly the stuff that recruiting videos are made of. I would argue this movie does not portray a 'broken man' on screen. What the movie shows is the mental equivalent of a cop getting shot in the shoulder in an action movie. It affects the character but it's used as an example of a 'flesh wound', enough to slow our guy down but not enough to stop him. This is further emphasized when he assumes a role 'rehabilitating' others with it, thus asserting his dominant role. Notice he's not divorced, his kids don't even seem to hate him, he's not been hospitalized. Real PTSD is a lot harder. High divorce rates, suicide, estrangement, violence, severe substance abuse, homelessness, etc. Snowman_McK posted: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. There is a ripple effect for popular enough media. A movie comes out, O'Reilly then talks about, then Glenn Beck, then the lovely radio morning zoo, now Seth Rogen is talking about it, and by the time it's done and back around it has been thoroughly substantiated and validated. The truth 'lies in the middle' no matter where it originated.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2015 04:15
|
|
|
Cole posted: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. On a side note, comparing this to The Pacific is laughably dishonest for obvious reasons.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2015 04:17
|
|
|
Mr. Flunchy posted: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. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uZwuTI-V8SI&t=31s
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2015 04:21
|
|
|
Smoothrich posted:Do people not understand how lots of Americans ended up enlisting into the military after their patriotism was stirred by the events of 9/11? Pretty common shared experience. The Nightly Show's episode on the film had a US sniper admit that is what made him sign up himself, and talks candidly about his experiences killing people and struggling to adjust to society after four or five tours in Middle East wars. Then name it American Soldier instead of American Sniper? With Chris Johnson instead of Kyle? The reason Kyle's count is so high is in part due to the fact he had experience and training PRIOR to the invasion and prior to the surge of Americans enlisting. Why even use a real person? This movie would have actually been cheaper if they made it up whole clothe.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2015 04:38
|
|
|
mugrim posted:Then name it American Soldier instead of American Sniper? With Chris Johnson instead of Kyle? The reason Kyle's count is so high is in part due to the fact he had experience and training PRIOR to the invasion and prior to the surge of Americans enlisting. Why even use a real person? This movie would have actually been cheaper if they made it up whole clothe. He wrote a best selling memoir about it. I knew nothing about Chris Kyle and I'm afraid people's preconceptions of a guy who lived in the information age where anybody can be a wiki expert really ruined this movie for people. Like people watched this film with Michael Moores fat face bleating out disparaging tweets as running commentary and the idea of a screen play adaptation can nowadays be spun as unethical distortion of facts. Talking about the facts of Chris Kyle is to me like criticizing the design of Transformers robots as ruining ur immersion cuz it don't match your original manga. Then blaming it on Fox News.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2015 05:15
|
|
|
Smoothrich posted:He wrote a best selling memoir about it. I knew nothing about Chris Kyle and I'm afraid people's preconceptions of a guy who lived in the information age where anybody can be a wiki expert really ruined this movie for people. Like people watched this film with Michael Moores fat face bleating out disparaging tweets as running commentary and the idea of a screen play adaptation can nowadays be spun as unethical distortion of facts. Maybe you should read the memoir before claiming that people are blowing it out of proportion. It's kind of impressive how nobody who tries to defend this film can actually offer any cogent rebuttals of legitimate criticism. It always devolves into ridiculous straw man arguments and "who cares?" If you actually don't care, then why not leave the people who do care to have an actual discussion? The film itself is an artless slog, which is why the political angle is pretty much the only thing left to discuss.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2015 05:34
|
|
|
Clint Eastwood isn't deciding foreign policy. Neither are fans of the movie. Neither are you thankfully.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2015 05:38
|
|
|
I used to think that it didn't matter about popular depictions of war, until I found out that, to pick one, Paul Revere is in the history books entirely because of a poem.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2015 05:40
|
|
|
Smoothrich posted:He wrote a best selling memoir about it. I knew nothing about Chris Kyle and I'm afraid people's preconceptions of a guy who lived in the information age where anybody can be a wiki expert really ruined this movie for people. Like people watched this film with Michael Moores fat face bleating out disparaging tweets as running commentary and the idea of a screen play adaptation can nowadays be spun as unethical distortion of facts. Almost none of his memoir is in the movie. That's kind of the point. I read his book when it came out (in fact, he sold me on the "All proceeds will go to the families of soldiers fallen in combat" thing). You can't have it both ways. It's either based on a real story and should be treated as such, or it's not. If I make a movie called "The Real Story of Netanyahu" and it reads like "Articles of the Elders of Zion", that is troubling. If someone followed up saying "Well, you can't judge it as propaganda, it's just a movie" they would rightly be called out. Edit: Serious question, did you ever read the book? Smoothrich posted:Talking about the facts of Chris Kyle is to me like criticizing the design of Transformers robots as ruining ur immersion cuz it don't match your original manga. Then blaming it on Fox News. Transformers are not real. That's kind of the distinction.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2015 05:43
|
|
|
Smoothrich posted:Clint Eastwood isn't deciding foreign policy. Neither are fans of the movie. Neither are you thankfully. Have you heard of this thing called "voting"?
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2015 06:06
|
|
|
Its a loving movie! And made loads of money. It was an extremely successful adaptation of a book into a typical but topical war film, showing some tough stuff but presented without criticism or condemnation to be inoffensive and probably a relatable story of a soldier and his family dealing with war. The obvious intent of the story is to help people be more sympathetic to veterans who need help dealing with bad to some immoral things they had orders and training to do. Like kill a gently caress ton of people. Lots of families have dead or distant fathers or brothers or just loved ones and it's an appealing story to some. That's why people liked the movie! Not because it glorifies and justifies the loving neoconservative worldview! You people are crazy.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2015 06:52
|
|
|
I saw the movie, finally, tonight. It really reminds me of Full Metal Jacket in a way that it is totally blank and absolutely impartial to war and just shows it how it is which is violent, horrific and traumatizing but leaves the morals and politics out of it to allow the audience to determine what they think of the concept of war. Because the pro-war people are the loudest, we are seeing the ultra-conservative and "if you don't like it, git OUT!" crowd having the loudest voice and showing the strongest support. Watch it with an objective mind and you'll see this movie as just showing the grim reality of war and asking you to think about what should lead to it and what results. Me, as someone who is anti-war and thinks GWB was a horrible President (to be perfectly honest: bottom 5) with the Iraq War being the biggest foreign policy gently caress-up since Vietnam I just saw this movie as showing a man who went to war, came out horribly broken and all the "savages" and idolizing of The Punisher is a product of people who went to war and have to speak such a foul language to deal with a foul reality. I will say Chris Kyle was an idiot for bringing a PTSD-ridden veteran to a firing range when that is a prime location for someone to get triggered.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2015 06:57
|
|
|
Grizzled Patriarch posted:Have you heard of this thing called "voting"? Or joining the military. I mean, foreign policy is definitely dictated in large part by soldiers as well as civilians. The larger the military force the more reason to use it. Hammer and nail and all. It doesn't get more political than going to a country and killing people in it. And that's a pretty disturbing thought to most people. Foreign policy is dictated in large part by public perception. War is a sustained effort that requires a lot of people. Attempts to build false narratives to foster the correct public perception is very much a key part of propaganda. I would argue that it is the propaganda of comfort. We need a just world where America acts rightly, where the real horror of war is not hundreds of thousands of dead and maimed people but rather that our strong white American hero has kind of a rough time connecting with his family while enjoying the spoils of the first world. This is why how the movie is shot is so manipulative. For example, the line "They'll fry you if you're wrong" is completely a lie. It's been half a century since the last American soldier was executed by the government. Our military is actually extraordinarily kind to both over use of force and violating ROE. There's a ton of training on ROE, but violations are very rarely met with actual criminal punishment. But that is not the world of the movie. In the world of the movie Kyle is the true believer and martyr. Similar narratives existed in the antebellum south for pretty much the same reasons. One thing that is interesting is the "Sheep dog" speech. Think about how that scene sets up the entire movie. It sets the narrative, yet it is completely false even within the story. Unless the roles are switched. Sheepdogs protect a herd of sheep, wolves come in a pack to prey on sheep. So in terms of the war scenes, who is who given the narrative laid out? mugrim fucked around with this message at 07:03 on Feb 23, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2015 06:59
|
|
|
You know let Clint Eastwood himself defend the movie in this thread. http://m.thestar.com/#/article/entertainment/movies/2015/01/13/think_before_you_shoot_clint_eastwood_says_of_war_interview.html Toronto Star posted posted:
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2015 07:20
|
|
|
I should also mention that Clint Eastwood is a notorious troll towards the modern GOP party and has severe disagreements with how the party conducts itself in the post-Reagan era (he is a self-declared Eisenhower Republican and if you didn't think him talking to a chair in 2012 was a troll move you haven't been on SA long enough) which should be taken into account when watching American Sniper.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2015 07:23
|
|
|
Smoothrich posted:You know let Clint Eastwood himself defend the movie in this thread. None of these statements except possibly the last are even about American Sniper except in the most abstract sense. They don't even talk about anything in the film. They don't add up to a "defense". Can you explain why you are so adamant in defending a film you admit you didn't really like? It seems that you want to say a lot more than "nuh-uh" and yet end up saying exactly that in most of your posts.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2015 07:31
|
|
|
Smoothrich posted:Its a loving movie! And made loads of money. It was an extremely successful adaptation of a book into a typical but topical war film, showing some tough stuff but presented without criticism or condemnation to be inoffensive and probably a relatable story of a soldier and his family dealing with war. There's been plenty of discussion in the past few pages about why "it's just a movie" shouldn't be treated as carte blanche. If you are trying to claim that media has no impact on social and political perceptions, you are objectively wrong. Maybe provide an actual argument instead of repeating the same uneducated opinion over and over? You aren't arguing from a position of good faith if all you are going to do is repeat your own opinion while dismissing contrary opinions out of hand. If you aren't interested in actual discussion, why are you here? If the "obvious intent" is to be more sympathetic to veterans, why did they very deliberately attempt to mislead the audience and reframe the context of the Iraq War? Tell me exactly how that in any way, shape, or form contributes to a more sympathetic view of vets. But I'm guessing you are just going to ignore this to tilt at straw men instead. Grizzled Patriarch fucked around with this message at 07:34 on Feb 23, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2015 07:32
|
|
|
Smoothrich posted:You know let Clint Eastwood himself defend the movie in this thread. The big question then becomes, why didn't he embrace Chris Kyle's philosophy? I get that he's using those words, but they are hollow. Kyle very clearly loved killing and attested to such on multiple occasion in both his memoir and interviews. Basic tenets of his philosophy are not only ignored but rewritten (including how he joined the military, which seems to be what Eastwood thinks is the most important).
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2015 07:35
|
|
|
If movies actually change the tide on political opinions, George W Bush would not have been re-elected in 2004 after Fahrenheit 9/11 which was the most successful documentary at the time and was honestly much more debated than American Sniper ever was.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2015 07:56
|
|
|
Grizzled Patriarch posted:If the "obvious intent" is to be more sympathetic to veterans, why did they very deliberately attempt to mislead the audience and reframe the context of the Iraq War? Tell me exactly how that in any way, shape, or form contributes to a more sympathetic view of vets. But I'm guessing you are just going to ignore this to tilt at straw men instead. Reframe the context? Who's context? You think some people didn't see 9/11 happen get motivated to join the military then ended up in Iraq as part of the War on Terror? There's a connection between the events there, are you wilfully ignorant of experiences that aren't identical to your own? That's the whole point of stories..
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2015 08:01
|
|
|
Justin Godscock posted:I saw the movie, finally, tonight. It really reminds me of Full Metal Jacket in a way that it is totally blank and absolutely impartial to war and just shows it how it is which is violent, horrific and traumatizing but leaves the morals and politics out of it to allow the audience to determine what they think of the concept of war. Because the Those edits and I'd agree completely with your post.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2015 08:07
|
|
|
Smoothrich posted:Reframe the context? Who's context? You think some people didn't see 9/11 happen get motivated to join the military then ended up in Iraq as part of the War on Terror? There's a connection between the events there, are you wilfully ignorant of experiences that aren't identical to your own? That's the whole point of stories.. The historical context. This film tries very hard to push the false narrative that Kyle joined because of 9/11 and that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11 / Al-Qaeda. They could have made this film a pure character study if the point was to make the audience sympathize with Kyle, but they very deliberately chose which bits of history to depict and which to omit, and its disingenuous as hell. I don't know if you are just being willfully obtuse or if you legitimately can't understand why people might be upset about this film's treatment of recent history, but either way it's pretty clear that you aren't actually interested in having a meaningful discussion. I like how you continue to ignore any actual arguments, though. All you want to do is hand-wave away any criticism and whine about imaginary meanie liberals, which is your prerogative, I suppose.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2015 08:16
|
|
|
Smoothrich posted:Those edits and I'd agree completely with your post. So you're saying it's an anti-war movie and ultraleftists are defending it? Isn't this the opposite of your thesis since you entered the thread? I'm genuinely trying to understand because this is, again, the opposite of my experiences with the media and social media discourses surrounding the film. Also, still trying to understand your defense of this film despite you not liking it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2015 08:18
|
|
|
Grizzled Patriarch posted:The historical context. This film tries very hard to push the false narrative that Kyle joined because of 9/11 and that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11 / Al-Qaeda. They could have made this film a pure character study if the point was to make the audience sympathize with Kyle, but they very deliberately chose which bits of history to depict and which to omit, and its disingenuous as hell. I don't know if you are just being willfully obtuse or if you legitimately can't understand why people might be upset about this film's treatment of recent history, but either way it's pretty clear that you aren't actually interested in having a meaningful discussion. I don't want to sound like a jerk, but as someone who was politically aware and around during 9/11 not talking about people saying "Iraq was behind 9/11" during those very confusing years would be doing a disservice to the legacy of that war because it was HUGE in getting people on-board. Even my 17 year old self at the time knew Iraq had gently caress-all to do with 9/11 and believed we should have been hunting Osama but the reality is people shouted down people like me because we used critical thought. I agree that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, it was all the neo-Conservative hawks who used George W Bush's idiocy and poor judgment of character to furthur their goals and that was to "avenge" the failure of his father (which in reality was his smartest foreign policy decision) to get Saddam in 1991. They used people like Chris Kyle to think "hey, Iraq is bad and you hate 9/11 so support the troops" to sign-up, vote GOP and insult people like me who went "wait, this doesn't sound right". Also, Chris Kyle signed-on because of the 1998 embassy bombings and not because of 9/11 and the film depicts this. It just shows that he became even more hardened against America's enemies (whatever he thought they were) because of the events of 9/11 which many were and I know this because 9/11 was probably the last time the left and right agreed on something and that was bombing the poo poo out of Afghanistan to get Osama. It was a very interesting time to be alive.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2015 08:25
|
|
|
Grizzled Patriarch posted:The historical context. This film tries very hard to push the false narrative that Kyle joined because of 9/11 and that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11 / Al-Qaeda. But that's why thousands of people probably signed up for the military! It's not exactly what happened to Kyle, but its representative of many other real life people. Do you understand what I'm saying? The narrative of a soldier joining the military because of 9/11 but fighting in Iraq is not a propagated lie, its reality! A real experience many have had. Soldiers don't decide where they get sent to! There is nothing in the movie warping history here, just an omission of you know hours of complexity and introspection into American foreign policy that was never the point of this film. You and people with your criticism need to seperate your feelings about the Iraqi War from what the movie actually depicts. So much projection going on. Just like a kid might've heard news about Pearl Harbor and enlisted, many soldiers saw 9/11 and enlisted for all the same reasons. That 9/11 was manipulated into real propaganda by real politicians doesn't change the emotional connections many people have between all the events of the time. The movie isn't that obtuse, and I'm just stunned I've heard this criticism parroted by so many people, that the movie is trying to say Saddam Hussein did 9/11. Its just a kneejerk response not grounded in reality, but in political bitterness and an undercurrent of bigotry towards conservative Americans or military veterans.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2015 08:30
|
|
|
Justin Godscock posted:I don't want to sound like a jerk, but as someone who was politically aware and around during 9/11 not talking about people saying "Iraq was behind 9/11" during those very confusing years would be doing a disservice to the legacy of that war because it was HUGE in getting people on-board. Even my 17 year old self at the time knew Iraq had gently caress-all to do with 9/11 and believed we should have been hunting Osama but the reality is people shouted down people like me because we used critical thought. I agree that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, it was all the neo-Conservative hawks who used George W Bush's idiocy and poor judgment of character to furthur their goals and that was to "avenge" the failure of his father (which in reality was his smartest foreign policy decision) to get Saddam in 1991. They used people like Chris Kyle to think "hey, Iraq is bad and you hate 9/11 so support the troops" to sign-up, vote GOP and insult people like me who went "wait, this doesn't sound right". I don't disagree with you. However, the film isn't showing us this context from Kyle's perspective - the narrative operates at an omniscient distance. The bigger issue is the way that the film tries to bend the timeline to suit its purposes; pushing the false narrative of a connection between Iraq and 9/11 was very much an important part of history, but the film jumps between that time period to the latter end of the Iraq war, at which point it was known that the WMD / 9/11 angle was bullshit. The film jumps between these points in order to avoid having to confront that fact. Similarly, the film uses time leaps to conveniently introduce Al-Qaeda (implicitly linking them together) without having to address the fact that Al-Qaeda wouldn't have existed in Iraq if not for the US occupation. It's an unjustifiably one-sided view of the conflict, and it's foolish to pretend that that's coincidental.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2015 08:44
|
|
|
Grizzled Patriarch posted: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? I've not seen any film about war that didn't whitewash the horror and atrocity to some degree in order to make it more palatable to audiences. Besides, Kyle's memoir is his own self-edited recollection of events, and to consider it the objective truth is unreasonable. Grizzled Patriarch posted: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". It's challenging the audience by not supplying them with easy answers about why we're in Iraq and what we're hoping to accomplish. You seem to hold it against the film for not laying it out there for the audience. I don't. Not saying either of us is right or wrong. Grizzled Patriarch posted: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. I disagree that he's portrayed as superhuman or flawless. I think he's haunted not by his sacrifice but by what he's done and what he's experienced. Maybe he's meant to be a symbol. It didn't take away from my thinking of him as a human being. Grizzled Patriarch posted: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. That's an interesting interpretation. I disagree that the audience was meant to feel contempt for his brother. In the movie, Kyle certainly didn't. I'd say he felt the opposite of contempt, and would say that the majority of the audience probably felt the same. Grizzled Patriarch posted: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. IIRC other soldiers may have celebrated the kill, but not Kyle. There were no cheers in the theater when I saw it. I don't remember any suggestion that killing the sniper might win the war, but maybe I missed it. Grizzled Patriarch posted:"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. I agree that mainstream media coverage has not shown the true scope of civilian suffering. You seem to believe that if it had, people might view the war differently, vote differently, change their points of view. I think this is true to a certain extent, but don't think it would sway public opinion as much as I suspect you do. I think people have a sense of how bad it is, just like they have a sense of how bad starvation in Africa is, and they're actively choosing not to think about it too much, let alone take the 30 seconds to google alternative news sources and put the tiniest bit of effort into looking into something for themselves. Grizzled Patriarch posted: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. I disagree that's it's handwaving. You seem to be taking the knee jerk, media-covered reactions of some people as the only reaction audiences are having, when introspection is by definition a more quiet, slower moving, internal process. There are people, mostly younger people, whose minds have not yet slammed shut, who are open to questioning the common narrative and thinking about things for themselves. Fortunately, they don't rely on the evening news for information, and they know that they can get more accurate data from Al-Jazeera than Fox News. Grizzled Patriarch posted: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? Look at someone representing your country in a sovereign nation with a child in his crosshairs- twice. Watch him kill one and agonize over the possibility of killing another. Look at his brother going off the rails because of the war. Watch his fellow soldiers get shot in the head. Look at his wife telling him that's he's changing in ways that he doesn't even recognize. Listen to a fellow soldier talking about revenge- an "eye for an eye"- and see the parallel with the revenge that is sought for the suffering that we are causing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2015 08:46
|
|
|
Smoothrich posted:The obvious intent of the story is to help people be more sympathetic to veterans who need help dealing with bad to some immoral things they had orders and training to do. Like kill a gently caress ton of people. Lots of families have dead or distant fathers or brothers or just loved ones and it's an appealing story to some. That's why people liked the movie! Not because it glorifies and justifies the loving neoconservative worldview! You people are crazy.   That's not why people love it, Smoothrich.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2015 08:46
|
|
|
socketwrencher posted:I've not seen any film about war that didn't whitewash the horror and atrocity to some degree in order to make it more palatable to audiences. Besides, Kyle's memoir is his own self-edited recollection of events, and to consider it the objective truth is unreasonable. I don't think it's unreasonable to consider a man's memoirs to be a better source of the reality surrounding his service than a script version of the man that is blatantly fictitious. I agree that there's no reason to treat his memoir as objective truth (especially since there are a number of verified lies in it) but the alternative is essentially fan fiction written by people that never met the man. quote:It's challenging the audience by not supplying them with easy answers about why we're in Iraq and what we're hoping to accomplish. You seem to hold it against the film for not laying it out there for the audience. I don't. Not saying either of us is right or wrong. It doesn't supply them with easy answers, but it also doesn't supply them with difficult questions. People aren't asking what we hoped to accomplish in Iraq - everyone knows by now that it was a war started under false pretenses. I don't think it's possible to challenge the audience without making them uncomfortable and nothing in this film really does that. It's all very shallow commentary. That doesn't mean that some people won't get something deeper from the experience, but I think it would be in spite of the film rather than because of it. quote:I disagree that he's portrayed as superhuman or flawless. I think he's haunted not by his sacrifice but by what he's done and what he's experienced. He is very much a mythical figure. He's "The Legend." He's more important to both the audience and to the military as a symbol than as a man. Whether he's haunted by his sacrifice or by what he had to do in service of his country, its very much a noble flaw. That's basically a textbook Byronic hero. In the scene with his brother (also completely fictionalized, there's no mention of his brother cursing the war in his book), Kyle has a pretty apparent look of disgust on his face. It's very much meant to contrast a soldier that is questioning the legitimacy of his service with the hero that knows in his heart of hearts that his intentions are pure. quote:IIRC other soldiers may have celebrated the kill, but not Kyle. There were no cheers in the theater when I saw it. I don't remember any suggestion that killing the sniper might win the war, but maybe I missed it. Kyle doesn't cheer, that's true. But the way the shot is filmed makes it pretty clear that it's supposed to be this immensely cathartic moment. The audience I was in went crazy when it happened, and a number of people in this thread have reported similar reactions. One of Kyle's officers explicitly suggests that killing Mustafa might end the war. quote:I agree that mainstream media coverage has not shown the true scope of civilian suffering. You seem to believe that if it had, people might view the war differently, vote differently, change their points of view. I think this is true to a certain extent, but don't think it would sway public opinion as much as I suspect you do. I think people have a sense of how bad it is, just like they have a sense of how bad starvation in Africa is, and they're actively choosing not to think about it too much, let alone take the 30 seconds to google alternative news sources and put the tiniest bit of effort into looking into something for themselves. Maybe it wouldn't have a major impact, but isn't it at least worth trying? Why approach it with a defeatist attitude? The alternative, sanitized view of war sure as poo poo isn't working. Maybe being confronted with something shocking is what the average person needs to take more than the barest glance inward? I agree that most people aren't going to look for it or put in the effort to find it, but they also wouldn't put in the effort to find the news that they are being exposed to if it wasn't being spoon-fed to them. quote:I disagree that's it's handwaving. You seem to be taking the knee jerk, media-covered reactions of some people as the only reaction audiences are having, when introspection is by definition a more quiet, slower moving, internal process. There are people, mostly younger people, whose minds have not yet slammed shut, who are open to questioning the common narrative and thinking about things for themselves. Fortunately, they don't rely on the evening news for information, and they know that they can get more accurate data from Al-Jazeera than Fox News. I don't think it's knee-jerk to say that a slow, introspective shift away from warhawking isn't really lining up with the reality of the situation. It's a great thought, but it feels overly optimistic. If anything, I think the national attitude toward war has backslid since Vietnam. The average American was far more ignorant of and isolated from the Middle East than they were from Vietnam (of course part of that had to do with the very real threat of the draft.) quote:Look at someone representing your country in a sovereign nation with a child in his crosshairs- twice. Watch him kill one and agonize over the possibility of killing another. Look at his brother going off the rails because of the war. Watch his fellow soldiers get shot in the head. Look at his wife telling him that's he's changing in ways that he doesn't even recognize. Listen to a fellow soldier talking about revenge- an "eye for an eye"- and see the parallel with the revenge that is sought for the suffering that we are causing. But this all comes down to filtering the war through one man. The audience understands that terrible things happen in a war. Nobody thinks otherwise. Everyone knows that soldiers have to do things that might eat them up inside. It's a comfortable, distant, sanitized view of war. None of this is new. Repeating the same message over and over isn't going to accomplish anything. I've seen hundreds of tweets about people leaving this film wishing they could "murder a raghead," but not a single one expressing the opposite sentiment.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2015 09:21
|
|
Mormon Star Wars posted:
This is my personal favorite. 
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2015 09:32
|
|
|
So do you think every fan of the movie is racist and or ignorant of recent history? Besides those twitter trolls about Muslims sound like some of the commentary about soldiers, Chris Kyle, and conservatives from the leftist critics which is my entire point. People are too partisan nowadays to hold any sort of real conversation about topical things without pandering to stereotypes and generalizations.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2015 10:38
|
|
|
Smoothrich posted:So do you think every fan of the movie is racist and or ignorant of recent history? I think the word 'irony' just exploded.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2015 10:47
|
|
|
Smoothrich posted:Besides those twitter trolls about Muslims sound like some of the commentary about soldiers, Chris Kyle, and conservatives from the leftist critics No they don't.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2015 10:49
|
|
|
Mr. Flunchy posted:No they don't. Guess I'm either with you guys or against you right? Mission accomplished. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2015 11:24
|
|
Smoothrich posted:Guess I'm either with you guys or against you right? Mission accomplished. Are you for real, dude?
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2015 11:35
|
|
|
(Re-)encountered this Zizek quote which seems appropriate.quote:In contrast to the simplistic opposition of good guys and bad guys, spy thrillers with artistic pretensions display all the "realistic psychological complexity" of the characters from "our" side. Far from signaling a balanced view, however, this "honest" acknowledgment of our own "dark side" stands for its very opposite, for the hidden assertion of our supremacy: we are "psychologically complex," full of doubts, while the opponents are one-dimensional fanatical killing machines. Therein resides the lie of Spielberg's Munich: it wants to be "objective," presenting moral complexity and ambiguity, psychological doubts, the problematic nature of revenge, of the Israeli perspective, but what its "realism" does is redeem the Mossad agents still further: "look, they are not just cold killers, but human beings with their doubts- they have doubts, whereas the Palestinian terrorists..." One cannot but sympathize with the hostility with which the surviving Mossad agents who really carried out the revenge killings reacted to the film ("there were no psychological doubts, we just did what we had to do") for there is much more honesty in their stance. (p11)"
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2015 15:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 11:17 |
|
|
The Zizek quote describes a problem with many war movies, American Sniper included. Of course then on top of that you have the fact that it covers a war that most thinking people agree was, to put it nicely, unnecessary. To use Vietnam as an example, looking back there are films that took head-on the question of "why the gently caress are we even over here?", and those that avoided it. The ones we remember positively are the ones that didn't shy away from asking the most difficult, uncomfortable question. American Sniper presents Kyle as a Rambo(First Blood, not what he became later) type figure, but its the movie I guess First Blood would have been if the first scene where Rambo is walking in his hometown was the final scene instead of the opening one. It never has the balls to say "But what if we were there for absolutely nothing? What if our guys died for stupid reasons and now nobody really gives a poo poo about them?" Its much more comfortable to not ask or answer these questions, but if Stallone can do it I'm confident Eastwood could have.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2015 16:16
|
|
