|
The biggest reason that the politics and accuracy are problematic with the movie is that it's not a movie - it's history. Stop thinking of the present moment, and think of the generation that's currently in elementary school. Right now they're not being told a single thing about war and foreign policy (aside from the constant TERRORISM background radiation from TV if their parents keep news stations on in the house, schools, or resteraunts/waiting rooms). About 10 years from now, those same kids that have been deliberately protected from any and all controversy about the war will be getting into high school classes, where they'll start to focus more on recent history. What's their Vietnam? Iraq. Yes, the movie is rated R, but with how it's constantly been advertised as a nonfiction story, do you honestly think that it would never come up? A class of Juniors or Seniors in school might be judged to write a report on the views in the movie, or maybe they'll just go to Space Google and type in "iraq war movie". What do you think the top results are? American Sniper, across the board. Yes, there's the chance it might change in the future, but I honestly doubt that there will be another hugely popular movie created with an even pseudo-factual angle about the war completed within the next decade. That means to an entire generation, at the time that they're the most vulnerable to information, American Sniper is fact. Every little thing about it like how 9/11 actually wasn't really the justified cause of the war will be completely missed, since they have no frame of reference. Are news stations still going on about how there's actually no link between Saddam and Al Queda? No. we know that, smart people know that, but people that haven't grown up yet don't loving know that. E: vvv: True, what I wrote was probably a bit of an overreaction since I was tired and in a pissy mood, but the root sentiment still holds true - a movie presenting itself as a factual account of something that will have such deep historical significance (yes, "based on", the thread's already been there) has absolutely no right to deliberately embellish any facts. I grant that a truly neutral voice is impossible about such a conflict, but that's different than what's already been discussed in the thread Sentient Data fucked around with this message at 21:10 on Mar 1, 2015 |
#
?
Mar 1, 2015 04:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 07:39 |
|
|
I don't think this movie has those sort of legs.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2015 20:32
|
|
|
Sentient Data posted:
If my history classes (and my dad's before me) are any indication then you won't get within 30 years of the present day in any of your high school history classes.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2015 23:02
|
|
|
computer parts posted:If my history classes (and my dad's before me) are any indication then you won't get within 30 years of the present day in any of your high school history classes. The Soviet Union still controls half of the world probably in my elementary school according to the huge maps hanging up on the wall when I was there in the mid 90s. But most textbooks I've seen at least try to cover the War on Terror which yes involve both 9/11 and Iraq no matter your politics. Hopefully ISIS won't be on the next edition of maps hmm. The curriculum itself tho just tends to run out of time by the 60s no matter what it seems yeah which is way more of a problem than this movie.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 01:04
|
|
|
Grizzled Patriarch posted:It's pretty amazing to see someone criticizing Hurt Locker for being inaccurate on one hand while defending American Sniper on the other. American Sniper is worlds more accurate than Hurt Locker. This has nothing to do with whether or not they are good movies or if their politics are sound.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 04:57
|
|
|
Cole posted:American Sniper is worlds more accurate than Hurt Locker. This has nothing to do with whether or not they are good movies or if their politics are sound. Not really. It just chooses different things to be innacurate about. Like its protagonist, for instance.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 21:42
|
|
|
Snowman_McK posted:Not really. It just chooses different things to be innacurate about. Like its protagonist, for instance. American Sniper inaccuracies: 9/11 caused Iraq, which if you had just removed that scene from the movie, the plot still would have managed to be driven forward. Chris Kyle being portrayed inaccurately (the product of the story being about someone, but if it wasn't inspired by actual events and the main character was named Lester Stevens, you wouldn't mention this). Hurt Locker inaccuracies: EOD teams don't roll out in three man units (which they do for the entire movie), EOD teams don't run off on sniper missions (which is a 40 minute scene), EOD teams don't go chasing after bad guys after an explosion (which is a huge plot point), their uniforms weren't correct at a lot of points (which is nit picking), a LtCol doesn't roll out just 'to see what it's like' because an e-4 says he should without a hilariously large personal security detail (which is another huge plot element), EOD units don't deploy one individual to meet up with a team (which happens a couple of times during the movie). Seriously, do you even know what you are talking about? Cole fucked around with this message at 22:43 on Mar 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 22:40
|
|
|
Cole posted:, but if it wasn't inspired by actual events and the main character was named Lester Stevens, you wouldn't mention this). In a hypothetical film where Hurt Locker didn't have the tactical realism issues you pointed out, there'd also be nothing to discuss.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 22:44
|
|
|
You aren't wrong, but I think its missing the big picture if your metric for an effective anti-war film is "tactical realism." Which is ignoring things in American Sniper like the bullshit about Kyle "getting fried" if he violates ROE, him leaving his overwatch position to go kick in doors, the ridiculous sniper duel that forms the film's dramatic center ("killing him might end the war!"), etc. The broader historical inaccuracies in AS are much more problematic than the ones in Hurt Locker. It's basically like all the people bitching about Whiplash because the drum kit is wrong.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 22:46
|
|
|
Grizzled Patriarch posted:You aren't wrong, but I think its missing the big picture if your metric for an effective anti-war film is "tactical realism." If you are talking about Hurt Locker, literally the entire movie was inaccurate.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 22:48
|
|
|
Cole posted:If you are talking about Hurt Locker, literally the entire movie was inaccurate. As is American Sniper. The nature of the main character and his motive is kind of important. It isn't some minor thing on par with the wrong badge being displayed for that year.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 22:50
|
|
|
Snowman_McK posted:As is American Sniper. The nature of the main character and his motive is kind of important. It isn't some minor thing on par with the wrong badge being displayed for that year. Let me just ask: what are your credentials for saying American Sniper is inaccurate?
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 22:53
|
|
|
Cole posted:Let me just ask: what are your credentials for saying American Sniper is inaccurate? The book it's based on. Also reality.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 22:54
|
|
|
Cole posted:If you are talking about Hurt Locker, literally the entire movie was inaccurate. And yet it is still a better anti-war film.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 23:01
|
|
|
Snowman_McK posted:The book it's based on. Also reality. Everyone has said how the book strayed from the reality of who Chris Kyle was, but you trust the accuracy of everything else? What reality are you talking about, exactly?
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 23:17
|
|
|
Grizzled Patriarch posted:And yet it is still a better anti-war film. It isn't a war film. It's an action/adventure drama that takes place in the Middle East. Like how Bad Boys stars two guys who are in Miami PD who go to Cuba and blow up a mansion, drive a hummer through a shanty town and drive on to Guantanimo. That's as realistic a depiction of police work as Hurt Locker is of the military.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 23:18
|
|
|
Cole posted:Everyone has said how the book strayed from the reality of who Chris Kyle was, but you trust the accuracy of everything else? There's also the way the film hinges on a sniper duel quote:(which is a huge plot point) quote:What reality are you talking about, exactly?
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 23:28
|
|
|
Snowman_McK posted:That's not what people said. The film Chris bears little to no resemblance to the book Chris. That's the inaccuracy being referred to. Chris himself has actually been legally determined to be a liar, but an adaptation of his book that actually used what a weird, pathologically dishonest guy he was would have been a hell of a lot more interesting. And honest. Turning "damaged, lying, homicidal Chris" into "stoic, silent Chris" is pretty drat inaccurate. And it's a dangerous lie, too. Most of the people killed in Iraq before IEDs became a big thing were killed by sniper fire, this was a real thing. Chris Kyle has a recorded shot of around 2000m, which is the 8th longest confirmed kill in history. Combining these two facts is Hollywood. However, in Hurt Locker, you can't combine two facts because two facts don't even exist to combine, the entire movie is incorrect in everything that it does. Iraq being related to 9/11 is not true. But like I said, you can remove that scene and you really don't hurt the plot of the movie. Remove any of the stuff I named about Hurt Locker, and you directly hurt the plot of the movie.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 23:38
|
|
|
Cole posted:It isn't a war film. It's an action/adventure drama that takes place in the Middle East. And a make believe Chris Kyle fighting a make believe sniper duel with a make believe Mustafa after another character suggests that killing him might end the Iraq War (lol) is...? edit: Nobody is trying to argue that Hurt Locker is an accurate depiction of military life. But that doesn't preclude it from having a more effective anti-war message than even the most factually accurate war film you can find (and you can certainly do better than American Sniper in that regard). Grizzled Patriarch fucked around with this message at 23:41 on Mar 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 23:39
|
|
|
Grizzled Patriarch posted:And a make believe Chris Kyle fighting a make believe sniper duel with a make believe Mustafa after another character suggests that killing him might end the Iraq War (lol) is...? Believe it or not, people believed killing Osama would end the war in Afghanistan. It didn't. These are things people actually believed at the time the movie takes place. This is realistic. And whether or not you want to believe it, a lot of snipers get killed by other snipers. Other than indirect fire, it's your best way to eliminate the target.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 23:40
|
|
|
Grizzled Patriarch posted:edit: Nobody is trying to argue that Hurt Locker is an accurate depiction of military life. But that doesn't preclude it from having a more effective anti-war message than even the most factually accurate war film you can find (and you can certainly do better than American Sniper in that regard). I am not arguing that American Sniper is 100% factually accurate. I'm arguing that holding up Hurt Locker next to it is very silly because Hurt Locker is about as far away from a factual war movie you can get, and if you want to spread an anti-war message, you shouldn't do it with something as factually inaccurate as Hurt Locker. You might as well go find a supermarket tabloid to help make your point.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 23:45
|
|
|
Cole posted:Believe it or not, people believed killing Osama would end the war in Afghanistan. This is just moving goalposts, though. Comparing the leader of Al-Qaeda to a random insurgent sniper is patently ridiculous. You are too caught up in tactical realism, which is really a non-issue. The most accurate movie in the world can still be a lovely, ineffectual movie. And if you are going to go down that road, you still haven't replied to the other blatant inaccuracies in the film (a sniper leaving his designated overwatch to kick in doors with the people he's supposed to be providing overwatch for, the "you'll fry" line.) You obviously like the movie, and that's okay. Nobody is saying that you can't enjoy it. But let's not try to turn the movie into something it's not. edit: And again, factual inaccuracy is less of an issue that the broader historical inaccuracy of AS. The fact that an EOD team doesn't roll out in a 3 man squad has literally zero bearing whatsoever on the message of the film, its agenda, or the audience perception of the conflict it is attempting to portray. The same can not be said for American Sniper.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 23:47
|
|
|
A sniper leaving his perch to help a marine unit with raids is more realistic than an EOD team becoming snipers or going off on renegade missions to find a bad guy. You're basing the historical inaccuracy of AS on 40 seconds of 9/11 footage, which is silly because it's a movie that is over two hours long, and it is also a scene that is unnecessary to drive the plot. Other than the 40 seconds of 9/11 footage that was implied to be the cause of Iraq (which the administration used as propaganda to go into Iraq, along with a multitude of other false testimonies), what historical accuracy are you talking about?
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2015 23:54
|
|
|
Cole posted:I am not arguing that American Sniper is 100% factually accurate. I'm arguing that holding up Hurt Locker next to it is very silly because Hurt Locker is about as far away from a factual war movie you can get, and if you want to spread an anti-war message, you shouldn't do it with something as factually inaccurate as Hurt Locker. You might as well go find a supermarket tabloid to help make your point. A reminder that Acts of Valour actually uses actual Navy SEALs doing Navy SEAL stuff (presumably pretty accurately, since they're actually Navy SEALS, in case you didn't notice the first twelve times it's yelled at you) yet is a dogshit movie, SMG analysis aside (SMG, please do your analysis on Acts of Valour again, it was great) This all started because someone challenged anyone to name a "more anti-war" film. Not a better one. Or a more tactically realistic one. Cole posted:A sniper leaving his perch to help a marine unit with raids is more realistic than an EOD team becoming snipers or going off on renegade missions to find a bad guy. They also don't 'become' snipers. Is it really insane that they managed to learn how to use a sniper rifle sometime before that? While in the army? Snowman_McK fucked around with this message at 00:03 on Mar 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 00:00
|
|
|
Cole posted:A sniper leaving his perch to help a marine unit with raids is more realistic than an EOD team becoming snipers or going off on renegade missions to find a bad guy. As others have said, the biographical angle is a pretty major historical misstep considering they are trying to bill this as the True Story (tm) of a real man in a real conflict. They could have sidestepped this issue neatly by making him a fictional character loosely based on Kyle, but they very deliberately didn't. You insist that this isn't a big deal, but a whole lot more people think it is. Which is fine, I don't think I'm going to change your mind or anything. But if you are going to enter into an actual debate about it, you have to do it in good faith by at least acknowledging the issues that people have with this sort of deliberate deception instead of saying "who cares." Otherwise there's not really any point in arguing about it. American Sniper is more realistic in terms of tactics, military details, etc., and that's fine. That's not a problem that anyone is bringing up, though. A completely fictional film can still inform someone's perception of the subject matter, which is why Hurt Locker is a more effective anti-war statement than American Sniper. Just like, say, District 9 offers commentary on apartheid even though it's "about" aliens. No critic is going to say "well the statement it's making about apartheid and race relations in South Africa doesn't matter because aliens aren't real and this future technology is totally unrealistic!"
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 00:07
|
|
|
Will someone explain to me what part of the movie implies that 9/11 was actually the cause of the war in Iraq? All I remember is him watching it on tv as his motivation to join the military. And also I have no idea how you could say that it was implied the sniper duel could end the war. Keep their troops safer? Sure. Single handedly end the war? No, and it was never presented that way.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 00:39
|
|
|
EATIN SHRIMP posted:Will someone explain to me what part of the movie implies that 9/11 was actually the cause of the war in Iraq? All I remember is him watching it on tv as his motivation to join the military. A character literally flat out says that killing Mustafa might end the war.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 00:42
|
|
|
EATIN SHRIMP posted:Will someone explain to me what part of the movie implies that 9/11 was actually the cause of the war in Iraq? All I remember is him watching it on tv as his motivation to join the military. It cuts directly from 9/11 to him being in Iraq. If you don't think that implies a connection, you may have misunderstood how editing works.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 00:52
|
|
|
Snowman_McK posted:It cuts directly from 9/11 to him being in Iraq. If you don't think that implies a connection, you may have misunderstood how editing works. He/The US is in Iraq due to 9/11.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 01:18
|
|
|
Snowman_McK posted:It cuts directly from 9/11 to him being in Iraq. If you don't think that implies a connection, you may have misunderstood how editing works. The connection is that he enlisted in the military because he saw 9/11 happen, like what thousands of people did in reality. That he ends up in Iraq killing the wrong people for no good reason compared to his original motivations is ironic but honest. Dare I say you are some kind of blowhard idiot?
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 06:28
|
|
|
Smoothrich posted:The connection is that he enlisted in the military because he saw 9/11 happen, like what thousands of people did in reality. That he ends up in Iraq killing the wrong people for no good reason compared to his original motivations is ironic but honest. Dare I say you are some kind of blowhard idiot? The movie does not portray it as the "Wrong people for no good reason", that's kind of the point. Killing muslims in retaliation for 9/11 is pretty much the implied point of his service as portrayed by the movie. They are an evil people on screen, and every bullet in them saves American lives.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 06:46
|
|
|
I dont even remember hearing the words Islam or Muslim in the movie once. They are his enemy cuz it's a loving war! He was sent there to kill enemies of the USA government, that is the role of our military. Of course it's awful that any of that happened but it did. Soldiers get sent to war for reasons they often don't fully understand but many choose to trust their government and believe in their mission whatever it is. I'm drat well sure someone like Chris Kyle was motivated more about saving the lives of his people then ending the lives of their people, even if they are the same thing in the end too.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 07:28
|
|
|
Smoothrich posted:I'm drat well sure someone like Chris Kyle was motivated more about saving the lives of his people then ending the lives of their people, even if they are the same thing in the end too. Not if his book is anything to go by.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 07:52
|
|
|
Smoothrich posted:I dont even remember hearing the words Islam or Muslim in the movie once. They are his enemy cuz it's a loving war! He was sent there to kill enemies of the USA government, that is the role of our military. There are like a billion Chris Kyle quotes where he talks about killing for the love of killing and complains that he wasn't allowed to shoot every person with a Quran. You may be "drat well sure" but you are also "drat well wrong" and letting your ideological blinders create a saint out of a dude who lied about shooting American citizens from the Superdome.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 10:36
|
|
|
Mormon Star Wars posted:There are like a billion Chris Kyle quotes where he talks about killing for the love of killing and complains that he wasn't allowed to shoot every person with a Quran. You may be "drat well sure" but you are also "drat well wrong" and letting your ideological blinders create a saint out of a dude who lied about shooting American citizens from the Superdome. That was a really disturbing quote. It reminds me of when I was 13 and we were all lying about hook ups we hadn't had, and Jason, the weird kid we didn't know why we were friends with, made up a story that was basically rape, because he didn't understand the rules of the game. It's like Kyle doesn't even get which killings he's allowed to boast about.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 12:13
|
|
|
I dont think soldiers are saints, they are trained killers. Are soldiers supposed to feel guilt about killing?
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 12:32
|
|
Smoothrich posted:I dont think soldiers are saints, they are trained killers. Are soldiers supposed to feel guilt about killing? Yes. Yes they are.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 14:05
|
|
|
computer parts posted:He/The US is in Iraq due to 9/11. Uuuuuh what?
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 14:21
|
|
|
mugrim posted:The movie does not portray it as the "Wrong people for no good reason", that's kind of the point. Killing muslims in retaliation for 9/11 is pretty much the implied point of his service as portrayed by the movie. They are an evil people on screen, and every bullet in them saves American lives. People had a lot of bad things to say about Lone Survivor, but it at least made the distinction between the Taliban forces and everybody else in Iraq with that village and the "gently caress the Taliban!" moment.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 15:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 07:39 |
|
|
Smoothrich posted:I dont think soldiers are saints, they are trained killers. Are soldiers supposed to feel guilt about killing? Well you're now getting into some real poo poo that would have made a great movie don't you think? Governments train soldiers to be killers, and to kill without thinking about it. The goal is for training to take over during combat so that soldiers won't break down psychologically, run away, panic, etc. Chris Kyle's story, as told in his book, is a perfect example of that training twisting a man up into something disgusting to the point that he's lost most of his humanity. The movie chose to tell that story in the most sanitized way possible, presumably because the more honest way wouldn't have been as marketable. Movie Kyle hasn't been turned into a monster as he was in real life, just a conflicted, damaged hero.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 15:21
|
|
