|
Smoothrich posted:So do you think every fan of the movie is racist and or ignorant of recent history? not all, but it seems to be a strong correlation american sniper is a film that, in part, glorifies our most recent military failure as well as stokes the righteous anger of islamophobes. this is not actually a good thing
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2015 20:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 20:59 |
|
|
Grizzled Patriarch posted: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. I suspect that the memoir was just one of several sources used to put together the script. It doesn't bother me that some/most of what we see in the movie is fictional. I think most of what is seen in war movies is fictional, and it doesn't necessarily take away from their truth. Grizzled Patriarch posted: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. I think the implicit question the movie asks is"What is the point of all this," and the implicit answer is "There is no point." That's fairly challenging, especially when everyone knows that the war was started over false pretenses (which I don't agree with, but it doesn't change my point). I agree that the movie could have been more challenging, but disagree that it didn't make anyone uncomfortable. If nobody was uncomfortable watching that movie, then I think we're past the point where any movie is going to trigger significance change. Grizzled Patriarch posted: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. The myth cuts both ways. The Legend will become just as much a part of Iraqi history as ours. In fact, I believe it will be remembered longer, as part of the U.S. invasion in general, in Iraq than in America, and its impact, symbolic and actual, will carry deeper meaning to the Iraqi people than to Americans, just as Agent Orange means something very different to the Vietnamese than it does to Americans (speaking generally, of course). In the scene with his brother, I read Kyle's look more as being concerned than disgusted, but I could be wrong. A friend wants to see the movie so maybe I'll go watch it again. Grizzled Patriarch posted: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. Agreed that it was a major moment in the movie. Interesting that it drew a parallel between a sniper on their side and the one on our side, and that killing their sniper- "an eye for an eye"- put Kyle and his fellow soldiers in jeopardy that resulted in several of their deaths. I believe that some audiences went crazy over this scene, but don't believe that it's representative of support of such actions in the general public as the demographic of people who go to see this movie may be skewed towards those who are pro-military. Grizzled Patriarch posted:One of Kyle's officers explicitly suggests that killing Mustafa might end the war. Thanks, I missed or forgot this. That's pretty bad except as an example of how soldiers are manipulated. Grizzled Patriarch posted: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. I'm completely in favor of better media coverage, but don't think it's defeatist to suggest that corporate interests have a stranglehold on mainstream media and that many people don't really want to stare harsh reality in the face after a long day at work. Climate change is part of the common narrative but how much traction in terms of people taking significant action has it gained? I'm sure most of us have seen photos and videos of people kneeling and crying over the prostrate bodies of loved ones who have been killed in iraq and Afghanistan, and it didn't take any research to find them. You're saying that they should be confronted with more of this, and I agree, but unfortunately bad news fatigue is a real thing, as is the power of culture and upbringing on how people's opinions are shaped and cemented into place. Grizzled Patriarch posted: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.) I think the presidential election in 2008 signified a shift, and polls seemed to back that up, especially in regards to Iraq. http://www.pewresearch.org/2008/03/19/public-attitudes-toward-the-war-in-iraq-20032008/ As for the national attitude toward war backsliding since Vietnam, I think it's hard to say. 9/11 certainly fired up pro-war sentiment, but as lies were exposed and the wars dragged on, I think it began to wane. http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm Grizzled Patriarch posted: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. There are always people who due to age, apathy, maturity or experience don't truly grasp the horrific nature of war. The obvious example is younger people who have not yet been exposed to it. It's fair to critique a movie for not breaking new ground, but I think most people see current movies and far fewer watch older ones, especially older war movies, so what might be the same old thing to one person might be eye-opening, and even shocking, to another. I'd say that Kyle is more sanitized in the movie than war is, and I think it was the right move. You make him this guy “I loved what I did. I still do. If circumstances were different – if my family didn't need me – I'd be back in a heartbeat. I'm not lying or exaggerating to say it was fun. I had the time of my life being a SEAL.” and what does it do except make most people care less about him and what happens to him, and maybe by extension care less about the troops in general? Whether you want to see movie characters as symbolic or not, I think they are, and people will make connections. Don't get me wrong. I didn't think this movie was anything special. I wish it was more challenging, and agree with your general sentiments about public awareness. I thought the two scenes with him and the children in his sights were powerful, and I doubt anyone cheered when he killed that kid. That we've brought and continue to bring such violence and pain to the people of Iraq speaks to a very uncomfortable truth.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2015 20:34
|
|
|
socketwrencher posted:
What exactly constitutes "caring about", or supporting the troops? From your posts in this thread that seems to be the #1 priority in your mind, that the film is supportive of our military personnel and that's the way it should be. I've always seen that phrase as a purposely vague catch-all used to shoot down criticism of the military whenever its convenient. Our servicemen are important and we should care about their welfare, but not at the expense of our own morality. There is plenty of blame to go around for the invasion of Iraq and all the lives lost there, I along with lots of other Americans failed to realize how wrong it was until it was too late. So the United States as a country needs to come to terms with that mistake, troops included. Making a film that takes place during the invasion and just pushing that issue off to the side to be dealt with at a later date is cowardly. I referred back to First Blood in my last post but this movie is like Rambo 3, when it could have easily been something along the lines of First Blood.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2015 21:14
|
|
|
I am loathe to get into this debate because the movie fell flat, but a lot of the people talking mad poo poo about it either didn't bother to watch it, or are deliberately misrepresenting what it presented to get their Leftist Feelgood Internet mad Arguments. I saw a movie about a guy who is gradually dehumanized by violence to the point where he's so hosed up and weird he can't even connect to his family anymore. The "missions" the soldiers were on had little clear objective if any usually, and often resulted in failure. I saw a film about a bunch of grunts bumble-loving around an urban environment, going from one scene of bloodhsed and horror to another with no clear goal, being basically fed into a meatgrinder. The film shows him enlisting before 9/11. 9/11 isn't ever even implied to be the reason he signed up. It's shown as the reason the war began, which is true. Everyone knows Iraq didn't have any involvement but that's completely immaterial to the film. The filmic, and real world fact is that 9/11 was the reason we went to war there. That was the excuse. the film isn't about the politics of the war. Criticizing that is criticizing an imaginary movie. the film is very much on the ground, form the point of view of regular dudes being turned into dysfunctional killing machines, hurting themselves over an aimless sense of duty. The biggest problem I saw in it was that it was based on a real person who was, in reality a huge hosed up lunatic. If it had been the same movie about a fictional dude with a different name the reaction would have been WAY different. But i haven't read the book. I have no interest in it. I only watched the movie because of all the negative buzz and wanted to see if the arguments against it had merit. I don't think most of them do, at least not against the film itself. In context of the real lunatic who inspired it sure, but he's dead and I don't care about him. I'm only interested in reading what's presented by the film. My biggest problem with it was that it was bland. some of the sequences were kind of cool. I really thought they overdid it trying to push their point about the cloudiness of the issue with the sandstorm, but I guess that big hamfisted metaphor went right over most of the folks heads here. it wasn't a great movie. it was a serviceable flick. I think he really did mean it to be an antiwar film, but I think Eastwood should have been more obnoxious and obvious about it if he wanted people to notice. So much of the response has been as comically black and white as the people accuse the film of being. So that's what I have to say about Clint Eastwood's American Sniper. A competently made but nothing special film about war and the horrors thereof.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2015 22:01
|
|
|
Robotnik Nudes posted:
Pretty much everyone in this thread agrees that the film was bland and artless, which is why the discussion went elsewhere. There's just not much to say about the film in terms of craft. The sandstorm wasn't lost on anyone, it's just that it was dumb handwavy "the truth is in the middle" metaphor. There was nothing cloudy about whether or not the Iraq war was justified during the period that the movie depicts Kyle deployed there, and Kyle's own perspective about the war wasn't cloudy at all either. edit: Which ties back into your point about real Kyle vs. fictional Kyle, but I don't think that aspect of the discussion surrounding this film deserves to be cast aside.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2015 22:58
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:What exactly constitutes "caring about", or supporting the troops? From your posts in this thread that seems to be the #1 priority in your mind, that the film is supportive of our military personnel and that's the way it should be. I've always seen that phrase as a purposely vague catch-all used to shoot down criticism of the military whenever its convenient. It's not the #1 priority in my mind. It's my speculation as to one of the main intentions behind the movie. I believe that Eastwood thinks that civilians by and large don't appreciate, acknowledge and honor military personnel, especially combat troops, as they should. I know several people around his age who have what I think can accurately described as scorn for such civilians. FWIW, I don't think that Eastwood is pro-war or anti-war, but rather hardline pro-justice. Basebf555 posted:Our servicemen are important and we should care about their welfare, but not at the expense of our own morality. There is plenty of blame to go around for the invasion of Iraq and all the lives lost there, I along with lots of other Americans failed to realize how wrong it was until it was too late. So the United States as a country needs to come to terms with that mistake, troops included. Making a film that takes place during the invasion and just pushing that issue off to the side to be dealt with at a later date is cowardly. I referred back to First Blood in my last post but this movie is like Rambo 3, when it could have easily been something along the lines of First Blood. The movie takes place over several tours spanning many years. Nothing is shown to have been accomplished. Kyle comes back after each tour changed for the worse. Do we need him explicitly telling his wife how horrific the experience was, and how she can't possibly understand what he's going through because she wasn't there, to get the message? When you watch a movie where people are killing each other without explanation, don't certain questions naturally come to mind?
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2015 23:13
|
|
|
Grizzled Patriarch posted:...There was nothing cloudy about whether or not the Iraq war was justified during the period that the movie depicts Kyle deployed there... Maybe I'm misreading this but I'd say that varying opinions on whether or not the war was justified is a very important point. It's why some people think the war is still justified.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2015 23:18
|
|
|
socketwrencher posted:Maybe I'm misreading this but I'd say that varying opinions on whether or not the war was justified is a very important point. It's why some people think the war is still justified. And those people are essentially the equivalent of the anti-vaxxers / anti-climate change crowd. Giving them a platform to espouse their bullshit is irresponsible at best. In the context of the film, it would be one thing if that was exclusively Kyle's perspective, but by making the film's "eye" omniscient, that's not what the film is presenting. edit: quote:It's not the #1 priority in my mind. It's my speculation as to one of the main intentions behind the movie. I believe that Eastwood thinks that civilians by and large don't appreciate, acknowledge and honor military personnel, especially combat troops, as they should. I know several people around his age who have what I think can accurately described as scorn for such civilians. That's utter bullshit, though. Our society is one of blatant military fetishism and hero worship. You have to be delusional to ignore the fact that even the so-called "leftist" media / news outlets are basically lining up to fellate the troops at every turn. Hell, I don't remember seeing any major news source that actually stopped to question anything about this film. It was nothing but people tripping over themselves to thank vets for their service. There hasn't been a society so appreciative of the military since ancient loving Greece. Grizzled Patriarch fucked around with this message at 02:43 on Feb 24, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2015 02:39
|
|
|
Grizzled Patriarch posted:
Are we? Are we appreciative? There's a lot of glamorization of it in the media. The film doesn't glamorize it any more than film nescesarilly does. Troops are treated like a GI Joe idea. Does their situation finding work with few skills outside the military show appreciation? Does the state of Veterans healthcare show appreciation? Do films that depict heroism without the damaging effects of that exposure to violence show appreciation? I'd argue that the film makes an attempt to reject that sort of of fake lip service and Optimus Prime-ization of troops does. It also has a super fatal flaw of trying to present that by using a character whose actions are inspired by and end up white washing a lunatic and contradicting itself. But I think it's a bit much to say that the fetishization of the military shows appreciation anymore than having a fat fetish makes someone into posting about thin privilege.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2015 02:56
|
|
|
Grizzled Patriarch posted:There hasn't been a society so appreciative of the military since ancient loving Greece. Regardless of what I think of the movie, this is pretty false. People are appreciative to troops when they are in front of troops. Usually the most supportive of the troops are either prior-military or someone who has a family member in the mil. People completely forgot about that we even had troops in Afghanistan for several years. The saying for a long time was "The military is at war, America is at the mall." There's been a surge in troop appreciation since social media started becoming such a phenomenon, but it's really more that you have one central location that EVERYONE is using. Twenty years ago if you had troop support in California, no one outside of that area would know about it. Now-a-days if you can have troop support on the moon and people in the poorest neighborhood of Detroit would know about it instantly.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2015 03:02
|
|
|
Cole posted:Regardless of what I think of the movie, this is pretty false. People are appreciative to troops when they are in front of troops. Usually the most supportive of the troops are either prior-military or someone who has a family member in the mil. People completely forgot about that we even had troops in Afghanistan for several years. Go back a few decades and people were literally spitting on the troops as they came home, so, uh, pretty sure it's an improvement there. I agree that social media made military appreciation a bigger deal, but it's disingenuous to claim that people weren't supportive of the troops from the very beginning. After 9/11 drat near every car on the road had a yellow sticker. Maybe it's a token sentiment, but what more do you really think you're going to get from people that don't understand what it's like to serve? I don't think it's fair to say people were only appreciative when they were "in front of troops," because that's pure conjecture. And how appreciative do you expect people to be, honestly? Like what would "appreciative enough" look like to you? Yes, people that have served / have family that served are going to have a deeper sympathy for it. Why wouldn't they? That's true of literally everything. Fewer people in the service means fewer people that can truly relate. The average American is way, way more appreciative of military service than people living in other first-world nations. I've lived in / got family in other countries where being in the military literally means nothing, either because serving is compulsory or because service isn't glamorized. Can you name another country that isn't a dictatorship where military service is held in as much esteem as it is here? Grizzled Patriarch fucked around with this message at 03:24 on Feb 24, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2015 03:21
|
|
|
Cole posted:Regardless of what I think of the movie, this is pretty false. People are appreciative to troops when they are in front of troops. Usually the most supportive of the troops are either prior-military or someone who has a family member in the mil. People completely forgot about that we even had troops in Afghanistan for several years. I would argue there is a world of difference between supporting the military and supporting the troops. People support war, domination, and the noble soldier in combat more than they support social programs for those who no longer fight. It is a dissonance but not a completely incompatible one. Americans find a much easier time supporting kicking rear end compared to creating large well managed social programs. socketwrencher posted:The movie takes place over several tours spanning many years. Nothing is shown to have been accomplished. Kyle comes back after each tour changed for the worse. Do we need him explicitly telling his wife how horrific the experience was, and how she can't possibly understand what he's going through because she wasn't there, to get the message? When you watch a movie where people are killing each other without explanation, don't certain questions naturally come to mind? A lot of terrorists are killed and purged from the world. That is what is accomplished in the movie. Bradley Cooper sacrifices a perfect family to defend good honest American soldiers as they kill the enemy.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2015 04:02
|
|
|
mugrim posted:I would argue there is a world of difference between supporting the military and supporting the troops. People support war, domination, and the noble soldier in combat more than they support social programs for those who no longer fight. It is a dissonance but not a completely incompatible one. It's the same dissonance that leads to a police force armed like a military but massive social gaps that lead to more crime.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2015 04:24
|
|
|
Transformers 3 is a better movie about the War on Terror.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2015 05:53
|
|
|
Shooter had a bolder political stance, too.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2015 06:27
|
|
|
mugrim posted: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. I'd say that there are two offences at work here: the first one is that a lot of American vets do suffer from - "moral injury", I think the term now is. And a sociopath who clearly did not was elected to represent them. There are tons of other, people and stories, who would be more truthful on this account. People who suicided because they could not bear the pain, for example. The other one, naturally, is the one where no one talks about the Iraqi suffering from PTSD. The people currently subject to drone invasions, too. Children growing up in these conditions. It's hard not to imagine that the penetrance of complex PTSD / developmental trauma disorder in Yemeni children must approach 100%. But "complex PTSD" are not words I personally see used routinely in the media in the context of drone strikes, and they really should be. Only that, well, you know. American exceptionalism. To suggest that the people living in those places are getting hosed up in the mind in the exact same way as the good American boys and girls - to equate those two... That would, unfortunately, take guts.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2015 08:53
|
|
|
The US loving loves the military. http://www.gallup.com/poll/171710/public-faith-congress-falls-again-hits-historic-low.aspx
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2015 09:23
|
|
|
Fangz posted:The US loving loves the military. Yeah the US loves to vote on things too.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2015 11:49
|
|
|
Cole posted:Yeah the US loves to vote on things too. How does that follow from my linked survey?
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2015 12:25
|
|
|
Fangz posted:How does that follow from my linked survey? Here's the thing about opinion polls: people are more likely to say what is "right" rather than what is true. Do a poll on racism. I promise the number of racists is DRASTICALLY higher than what your poll will show. Go sample 1000 D&D posters and see what they have to say about the military.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2015 12:41
|
|
|
Cole posted:Here's the thing about opinion polls: people are more likely to say what is "right" rather than what is true. Do a poll on racism. I promise the number of racists is DRASTICALLY higher than what your poll will show. So you think the US public feel that it is 'right' to trust the military more than small business, religion, their criminal justice system and the democratic process? You think that it's reasonable that admitting to a lack of faith in the military is analogous to admitting you are a racist? Edit: note that 34% of Americans self-report as racist. Fangz fucked around with this message at 14:18 on Feb 24, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2015 12:49
|
|
|
Fangz posted:The US loving loves the military. It's mostly insincere though, saying you support the troops is for most people just how you show off how much of a Real American you are. Nothing is lower effort than saying in a poll that you like something that it makes you look good to like.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2015 13:59
|
|
|
meristem posted:
This is exactly what the Zizek quote from a few pages ago was getting at. Compare the complexity of Kyle's character with the Iraqi characters in the film. If the film is just about the horrors of war in a general sense, why aren't the Iraqi's given the same treatment as Kyle? That's a rhetorical question because the obvious answer is the movie isn't about the horrors of war in general. Its about the horrors that our boys experience but gently caress the enemy they're barely human anyway. When you make that film in 2015, while there is certainly a market for it, there will also be plenty of criticism. There are a lot of people in the United States that aren't looking to buy that line of bullshit anymore.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2015 15:30
|
|
|
sean10mm posted:It's mostly insincere though, saying you support the troops is for most people just how you show off how much of a Real American you are. Nothing is lower effort than saying in a poll that you like something that it makes you look good to like. It's not "Do you support the troops" but rather "How much confidence do you have in this American institution". America has the most expensive military in the world, and if you go by country the second largest (With first having 4 times as many people total, and less than double America's total military). While our VA program has issues, it's a huge added safety net that is exclusive to the military and the immediate families of the military. It comes with easily the best disability payment packages in the nation (in terms of total payout, conditions of keeping benefits, likelihood of a monetary award, length of award, etc). I've worked a multitude of disability programs from State run, SSDI/SSI, VA, County programs, and the VA is by far the one you want. The reason it's not 'amazing' is that Americans don't really care about support and safety nets in general, but their priorities are pretty straight when it comes to veterans care. This is not a knock against the veterans as they do need money and resources, but rather a view that non-veterans do get the cold shoulder and part of the reason is the military is loved (arguably much more than the troops themselves). It is very much an added blow to anything to add vets. When WW2 vets could not get to a meeting/rally they intended to hold due to the federal shut down, that made more news than tens of thousands of Americans being unable to begin their disability benefits after the SSA had awarded them or the almost 20,000 children who lost headstart funding. The movie exemplifies the virtues of the noble soldier who just follows orders and keeps his men safe. It tries to paint the protector of the raiders as a noble position, regardless of the fact they're invaders. It shows the aggressive force as being primarily defensive, that they are being attacked. This is an important function and purpose for a lot of propaganda. Goebbels famously had newspapers and movies running saying that the polish were ethnically cleansing Germans and needed to be stopped. There is no real reason provided for their attack shown on screen (other than 9/11) and the enemy seems comprised of snidely whiplashesque bad guys. Any definition that includes American Sniper as an anti-war movie could probably include any movie in American cinema on military conflict. An anti-war movie does not just say war is bad it has to strip it of it's glory and show it's direct consequences as negative. American sniper showed many consequences being good (especially killing the enemy). While the hero is reluctant, this actually makes it worse because it says "The evil we do is good and we are the real victims." mugrim fucked around with this message at 16:58 on Feb 24, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2015 16:55
|
|
|
Grizzled Patriarch posted:And those people are essentially the equivalent of the anti-vaxxers / anti-climate change crowd. Giving them a platform to espouse their bullshit is irresponsible at best. In the context of the film, it would be one thing if that was exclusively Kyle's perspective, but by making the film's "eye" omniscient, that's not what the film is presenting. I was responding to this statement: "There was nothing cloudy about whether or not the Iraq war was justified during the period that the movie depicts Kyle deployed there, and Kyle's own perspective about the war wasn't cloudy at all either." (Bolded mine) I was just saying that I think there were voices both questioning the justification of the invasion/war and denouncing it at that time. Grizzled Patriarch posted:That's utter bullshit, though. Our society is one of blatant military fetishism and hero worship. You have to be delusional to ignore the fact that even the so-called "leftist" media / news outlets are basically lining up to fellate the troops at every turn. Hell, I don't remember seeing any major news source that actually stopped to question anything about this film. It was nothing but people tripping over themselves to thank vets for their service. Supporting the troops is different from supporting our foreign policy. There has been and continues to be a lot of negative commentary about the movie in the media: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nate-jara/american-sniper-and-the-f_b_6527590.html
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2015 18:27
|
|
|
Fangz posted:The US loving loves the military. This poll seems to be asking how confident are you that the U.S. military can get the job done, not whether or not you love the military.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2015 18:57
|
|
|
socketwrencher posted:I was responding to this statement: In the beginning? Sure. But by the late 2000's anyone who didn't realize that the Iraq War was completely and utterly unjustified was just drinking the kool-aid, and those people don't deserve to have their opinions placed on equal footing. If you mean asking why we were still there, that's a little different - there was definitely some back and forth about whether pulling out or maintaining the occupation was going to result in greater destabilization, etc. quote:Supporting the troops is different from supporting our foreign policy. There has been and continues to be a lot of negative commentary about the movie in the media: And that negative commentary is justified, in a lot of people's minds. But let's not act like an opinion piece criticizing the film in HuffPo / Rolling Stone is the equivalent of Fox / CNN / ABC / NBC's gushing and grandstanding. Most of the negative press surrounding this film is from sources that the average person is never going to see unless they specifically look for it. You also have to consider how the conservative smear campaign against "liberal bias" has resulted in "liberal" news sources like CNN pandering so hard that it's essentially indistinguishable from Fox at this point. The average citizen's exposure to the buzz surrounding this film is overwhelmingly positive.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2015 19:06
|
|
|
mugrim posted:A lot of terrorists are killed and purged from the world. That is what is accomplished in the movie. Bradley Cooper sacrifices a perfect family to defend good honest American soldiers as they kill the enemy. This was why I thought it was a good movie
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2015 19:07
|
|
|
Grizzled Patriarch posted:In the beginning? Sure. But by the late 2000's anyone who didn't realize that the Iraq War was completely and utterly unjustified was just drinking the kool-aid, and those people don't deserve to have their opinions placed on equal footing. If you mean asking why we were still there, that's a little different - there was definitely some back and forth about whether pulling out or maintaining the occupation was going to result in greater destabilization, etc. There seem to be a significant number of people who continued to support the war through the late 2000s and up to the present day. Their opinions are as valid, even if you consider them wrong, as the opinions of those who did not support the war. Grizzled Patriarch posted:And that negative commentary is justified, in a lot of people's minds. But let's not act like an opinion piece criticizing the film in HuffPo / Rolling Stone is the equivalent of Fox / CNN / ABC / NBC's gushing and grandstanding. Most of the negative press surrounding this film is from sources that the average person is never going to see unless they specifically look for it. I think the media landscape is demarcated by demographics, and in flux. The "average person" is very hard to describe but the trend seems to be towards getting news from the internet/social media and not traditional sources (tv, newspapers, radio): http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/10/16/12-trends-shaping-digital-news/ Grizzled Patriarch posted:You also have to consider how the conservative smear campaign against "liberal bias" has resulted in "liberal" news sources like CNN pandering so hard that it's essentially indistinguishable from Fox at this point. The average citizen's exposure to the buzz surrounding this film is overwhelmingly positive. Agree that CNN is far from liberal, it's corporate news. The only positive buzz about this film that I've seen has been for Cooper's performance and the big box office. Most of the press I've seen about the content of the movie has been overwhelmingly negative, but I don't frequent many mainstream sources (including HuffPo).
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2015 19:39
|
|
|
I think Fox News counts as mainstream, sadly.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2015 19:49
|
|
|
Fangz posted:I think Fox News counts as mainstream, sadly. Ha- are you saying my comments indicate that I watch Fox News?
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2015 19:53
|
|
|
socketwrencher posted:There seem to be a significant number of people who continued to support the war through the late 2000s and up to the present day. Their opinions are as valid, even if you consider them wrong, as the opinions of those who did not support the war. Their opinions are valid in the sense that every opinion is "valid". Doesn't stop me from forming my own opinion that those people are morons to be tuned out and ignored whenever possible. If you're sitting here today still able to look back at that war and claim that it was justified with a straight face, there is something wrong with you. I'm not denying that there are plenty of those people who are severely delusional though, and that's the problem with this movie. It gives idiots false justification for their stupid opinions and contributes to these beliefs still existing long after any thinking person should have changed them. It leads to us being hated around the world and resented even by our own allies.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2015 20:05
|
|
|
socketwrencher posted:There seem to be a significant number of people who continued to support the war through the late 2000s and up to the present day. Their opinions are as valid, even if you consider them wrong, as the opinions of those who did not support the war. No, actually, people who support an unjustified war and the loss of life that comes with it do not have valid opinions. I compared them to anti-vaxxers for a reason. They are delusional people with dangerous ideas that don't deserve a place in educated discourse. They are the same people who have "opinions" about Obama being a secret Kenyan Muslim and to act like their input is in any way, shape, or form as meaningful or legitimate as their opposition is absurdly disingenuous. quote:I think the media landscape is demarcated by demographics, and in flux. The "average person" is very hard to describe but the trend seems to be towards getting news from the internet/social media and not traditional sources (tv, newspapers, radio): Yes, but where the news is coming from isn't even all that important when almost nobody is reading the news at all. And people getting their news online mostly just means that they are going to Fox.com or CNN.com instead of watching them on the TV, so eh. Off the top of my head, CNN, Fox, and even Comedy Central (the "viper's nest" of liberal media) via the Nightly Show all had fawning segments about the movie, Chris Kyle, and veterans, without questioning the film or its politics even remotely. I would be absolutely shocked if any other major news network was any different. Most of the negative buzz has been coming from sources involved in the film industry directly or the arts in general - i.e., sources that just get undermined as being elitist or leftist. There is certainly negative press, but it's a pond in the sea of praise unless you are specifically looking for it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2015 20:26
|
|
|
Grizzled Patriarch posted:No, actually, people who support an unjustified war and the loss of life that comes with it do not have valid opinions. I compared them to anti-vaxxers for a reason. They are delusional people with dangerous ideas that don't deserve a place in educated discourse. They are the same people who have "opinions" about Obama being a secret Kenyan Muslim and to act like their input is in any way, shape, or form as meaningful or legitimate as their opposition is absurdly disingenuous. Mmmmmmmmmmmmmm
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2015 20:30
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:Their opinions are valid in the sense that every opinion is "valid". Doesn't stop me from forming my own opinion that those people are morons to be tuned out and ignored whenever possible. Completely agree. Basebf555 posted:If you're sitting here today still able to look back at that war and claim that it was justified with a straight face, there is something wrong with you. I certainly never thought it was justified, even at the time of the invasion, and think our foreign policy is horrific and causing incalculable pain and suffering. Basebf555 posted:I'm not denying that there are plenty of those people who are severely delusional though, and that's the problem with this movie. It gives idiots false justification for their stupid opinions and contributes to these beliefs still existing long after any thinking person should have changed them. It leads to us being hated around the world and resented even by our own allies. Those idiots' opinions are not going to be changed by a movie, and I'm sure they find justification for their opinions on a regular basis from a variety of sources. But it's an interesting question whether this movie does more harm than good. It's getting a lot of media attention, and creating a lot of debate. I don't recall this much attention paid to the war in Iraq in a long time. I suspect that the number of people who love the movie is equaled or surpassed by those who hate it. The ones who love it are, I believe, a lost cause. The ones who hate it may think about the war and foreign policy a little bit more than they have in the past. People whose opinions have not yet been been fossilized may draw varying conclusions about the Iraq War after seeing the film.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2015 20:31
|
|
|
socketwrencher posted:Completely agree. This is the reason people have a problem with this movie and its treatment of the war.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2015 20:34
|
|
|
Grizzled Patriarch posted:No, actually, people who support an unjustified war and the loss of life that comes with it do not have valid opinions. I compared them to anti-vaxxers for a reason. They are delusional people with dangerous ideas that don't deserve a place in educated discourse. They are the same people who have "opinions" about Obama being a secret Kenyan Muslim and to act like their input is in any way, shape, or form as meaningful or legitimate as their opposition is absurdly disingenuous. This seems to be verging on the suppression of opinions that dissent from your own. There's a word for that. Grizzled Patriarch posted:Yes, but where the news is coming from isn't even all that important when almost nobody is reading the news at all. And people getting their news online mostly just means that they are going to Fox.com or CNN.com instead of watching them on the TV, so eh. Whether people are reading news or not is another point altogether. Top 15 political websites: http://www.ebizmba.com/articles/political-websites Grizzled Patriarch posted:Off the top of my head, CNN, Fox, and even Comedy Central (the "viper's nest" of liberal media) via the Nightly Show all had fawning segments about the movie, Chris Kyle, and veterans, without questioning the film or its politics even remotely. I would be absolutely shocked if any other major news network was any different. Most of the negative buzz has been coming from sources involved in the film industry directly or the arts in general - i.e., sources that just get undermined as being elitist or leftist. There is certainly negative press, but it's a pond in the sea of praise unless you are specifically looking for it. Interesting. I have a hard believing that Jon Stewart and Rachel Maddow had segments fawning over the movie, but i haven't been watching them recently.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2015 20:42
|
|
|
Grizzled Patriarch posted:This is the reason people have a problem with this movie and its treatment of the war. It would be interesting to know the breakdown of what audience members in the non-fossilized category drew from the film.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2015 20:45
|
|
|
socketwrencher posted:This seems to be verging on the suppression of opinions that dissent from your own. There's a word for that. It's not about suppression, it's about giving false legitimacy to people spreading dangerous lies and misinformation. It's like when they have a debate between one scientist that doesn't believe in climate change vs. one that does. It presents both ideas as equal while ignoring the fact that one side has been completely discredited and that there are a thousand experts that disagree with him for every one that agrees. People are free to hold whatever opinions they want, but giving them a soapbox on a platform that people draw their news from and trust to be a reliable source of information is socially irresponsible at best. Should people be allowed to go on the news and tell blatant, verifiable lies that the audience might accept at face value just so their feelings don't get hurt? It's not really the same thing as squashing a reasonable, informed political opinion or something. quote:Whether people are reading news or not is another point altogether. You also have to consider the fact that the people actually reading news aren't the ones who have misinformed / uninformed opinions about the war. The kind of person that is reading HuffPo on a daily basis isn't sitting around wondering if invading Iraq was maybe justified. It's one of those catch-22s where the people that need the news most aren't reading any. I mentioned earlier that 96% of the population reads less than 10 news articles in a 3 month span. That's pretty bad. I would feel a lot more comfortable about movies like this if the general public was more informed in general. quote:
It was Larry Wilmore (Colbert's replacement), I dunno if Stewart has weighed in any meaningful fashion. I believe Maddow has kept silent too (probably wisely) but there was a big segment that essentially boiled down to "thanks for your service." Which is understandable, since saying anything that could be construed as questioning the military on prime time news is probably a good way to wind up without a career. socketwrencher posted:It would be interesting to know the breakdown of what audience members in the non-fossilized category drew from the film. Completely agree.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2015 21:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 20:59 |
|
|
socketwrencher posted:Interesting. I have a hard believing that Jon Stewart and Rachel Maddow had segments fawning over the movie, but i haven't been watching them recently. Yes, pretty hard to believe that such progressive spokespeople like Jon Stewart, whose show perviously helped plug Jon Yoo's torture apologia and whatever garbage Henry Kissinger was pushing at the time, would legitimize such obvious propaganda.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2015 21:57
|
|
