|
Cole posted:Again, the movie shows him joining up because of 9/11. It is not his fault the people in charge sent him somewhere that had nothing to do with 9/11. He joins up in the movie because of an Embassy bombing, 9/11 comes later in the narrative.
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 22:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 08:43 |
|
|
Cole posted:So what do you want them to do? Depict some bullshit stance on the subject? Because people are arguing about how this movie is bullshit propaganda, but you're asking to change the climate of war to some bullshit propaganda by not showing the actual climate of the war. I'd rather the movie have put on full display the monstrous, hosed up person that Chris Kyle had become. To make a statement about how just because in one moment of decision it's "necessary" to kill, that doesn't mean a shitload of mistakes weren't made that led to it. I get what you're saying about how the movie is from Kyle's perspective and he didn't give a poo poo about any of the politics, but there are ways to get that message across without having to show Kyle himself being concerned about them. Of course Kyle isn't concerned about why he's in Iraq, he just wanted to shoot some people. The military turned him into that. The real-life Kyle maybe would have been shocking enough to shake something loose in people's heads and cause them to ask these difficult questions. Again, just to be clear I'm not saying its the filmmakers "responsibility" to do that, but it sucks that they didn't even try.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 22:57
|
|
|
Cole posted:In the movie? 9/11. It's why the 9/11 footage was shown, to give him motive for joining the military. Which, given the events, is not a bad reason to join the military. Once you are in, you are not responsible for where you get deployed. The difference is that the movie isn't showing that "no one is innocent in the minds of the troops," they are showing that no one is innocent in the world of the movie and that the fact that the military clings to the illusion that there could be innocents there is one of the things harming our soldiers.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 23:00
|
|
|
Danger posted:Well now I'm sorta confused on your position in contrast to your earlier statement: " "Not really, but i am going to humor your point anyway." Did you ignore the "not really. and even if it did..." portion?
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 23:00
|
|
|
Mormon Star Wars posted:The difference is that the movie isn't showing that "no one is innocent in the minds of the troops," they are showing that no one is innocent in the world of the movie and that the fact that the military clings to the illusion that there could be innocents there is one of the things harming our soldiers. The world of the movie took place in Iraq, where no one was innocent to American troops. So I guess I agree with you? Basebf555 posted:I'd rather the movie have put on full display the monstrous, hosed up person that Chris Kyle had become. To make a statement about how just because in one moment of decision it's "necessary" to kill, that doesn't mean a shitload of mistakes weren't made that led to it. I get what you're saying about how the movie is from Kyle's perspective and he didn't give a poo poo about any of the politics, but there are ways to get that message across without having to show Kyle himself being concerned about them. Of course Kyle isn't concerned about why he's in Iraq, he just wanted to shoot some people. The military turned him into that. You are asking for a movie that is not about Chris Kyle at all though. You're asking for a movie by Michael Moore. Mr. Flunchy posted:He joins up in the movie because of an Embassy bombing, 9/11 comes later in the narrative. Instead of nit picking, just get the point I'm making maybe?
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 23:02
|
|
|
Cole posted:
The movie I'm asking for would feature Chris Kyle as the main character, and he would be portrayed as accurately as possible using his own biography. I don't understand how it would "not be about Chris Kyle at all." The real guy was a broken human being who had been twisted up to the point where he enjoyed killing people. I'm just asking that the real person be presented in the movie instead of a person with his name that never existed.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 23:07
|
|
|
Ooh sorry, wasn't a criticism. This thread is much more interesting than every other thread in CineD. You just don't get people justifying child murder in the comic book threads! Carry on!
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 23:07
|
|
|
Mr. Flunchy posted:Ooh sorry, wasn't a criticism. This thread is much more interesting than every other thread in CineD. You just don't get people justifying child murder in the comic book threads! Yes, because it is that black and white.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 23:08
|
|
|
Cole posted:The world of the movie took place in Iraq, where no one was innocent to American troops. So I guess I agree with you? Which is exactly why that scene is not horrifying in the way that you and smoothrich are portraying it. It's not horrible to shoot someone who isn't innocent (and all Iraqi children are guilty in the world of American Sniper). There's no horror there - putting down an Iraqi child, in the movie, is as meaningful as putting down a tiger. The horrifying aspect of the scene is the idea that anyone could be punished for doing it in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 23:08
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:I'd rather the movie have put on full display the monstrous, hosed up person that Chris Kyle had become. To make a statement about how just because in one moment of decision it's "necessary" to kill, that doesn't mean a shitload of mistakes weren't made that led to it. I get what you're saying about how the movie is from Kyle's perspective and he didn't give a poo poo about any of the politics, but there are ways to get that message across without having to show Kyle himself being concerned about them. Of course Kyle isn't concerned about why he's in Iraq, he just wanted to shoot some people. The military turned him into that. The movie you seem to want to see would contain the political maneuverings that led to the invasion and continue to this day. It would put a very specific spin on the movie that Eastwood seems to have deliberately avoided.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 23:09
|
|
|
Cole posted:"Not really, but i am going to humor your point anyway." Your earlier position was that the marketing did not go to any length to portray the story as an actual depiction of the real life Kyle, and even if it did it would be a silly criticism (which is true, as this is a creative work) because it is not a depiction of the real life Kyle (comparing the movie to the same 'based on' motif of Hurt Locker); but them continue with further criticism that it is likewise silly to devote any portion of a movie about Chris Kyle to something Chris Kyle didn't really know poo poo about (which is false, as the Kyle character itself is an ideological expression). I'm having a hard time piecing together what your particular reading of the film is or is not based on.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 23:10
|
|
|
Mormon Star Wars posted:Which is exactly why that scene is not horrifying in the way that you and smoothrich are portraying it. It's not horrible to shoot someone who isn't innocent (and all Iraqi children are guilty in the world of American Sniper). There's no horror there - putting down an Iraqi child, in the movie, is as meaningful as putting down a tiger. The horrifying aspect of the scene is the idea that anyone could be punished for doing it in the first place. Actually the rules of engagement said "military aged males" were the enemy, not children or women, and the only child shot in the movie was carrying a bomb, which falls under "hostile act and hostile intent," which defaults whoever is exhibiting that, even if they are in a wheelchair, blind and rolling the wrong way, as an enemy combatant.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 23:11
|
|
|
Cole posted:Yes, because it is that black and white. No, I get it. Sometimes you gotta blow a kid away right? Pop pop.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 23:12
|
|
|
Mormon Star Wars posted:Which is exactly why that scene is not horrifying in the way that you and smoothrich are portraying it. It's not horrible to shoot someone who isn't innocent (and all Iraqi children are guilty in the world of American Sniper). There's no horror there - putting down an Iraqi child, in the movie, is as meaningful as putting down a tiger. The horrifying aspect of the scene is the idea that anyone could be punished for doing it in the first place. There are other ways to view it. I was horrified by it even though it was justified under the circumstances. The equation between killing a child and killing a deer is horrific. I suspect that most people viewed it as horrifying but maybe I'm wrong.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 23:12
|
|
|
Mr. Flunchy posted:No, I get it. Sometimes you gotta blow a kid away right? Pop pop. If they are running at a group of people with a bomb intent on blowing up that group of people? Yeah, sometimes it is justified. But at least you get it. What would you rather have happen? Pretend like this isn't a war, pretend like it is a child running at random civilians in New York. Should a police officer just let that child run up and blow a fuckton of people up?
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 23:13
|
|
|
At this point it's probably either based on being contrarian, a paycheck through a State Department NGO, or just trying to stave off a guilty conscience
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 23:13
|
|
|
Cole posted:Actually the rules of engagement said "military aged males" were the enemy, not children or women, and the only child shot in the movie was carrying a bomb, which falls under "hostile act and hostile intent," which defaults whoever is exhibiting that, even if they are in a wheelchair, blind and rolling the wrong way, as an enemy combatant. Exactly, the horrifying realization comes from the context of the earlier 9/11 imagery (a building full of military aged males).
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 23:15
|
|
|
Danger posted:Exactly, the horrifying realization comes from the context of the earlier 9/11 imagery (a building full of military aged males). Actually the horrifying realization that he shot a kid comes when he shoots a kid.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 23:18
|
|
|
Cole posted:If they are running at a group of people with a bomb intent on blowing up that group of people? Yeah, sometimes it is justified. But at least you get it. Sometimes tough men have to make the calls that noone else can. They don't enjoy it, but this is the way of the soldier, right? And if it ends with a smouldering ruin of a country and millions dead. Well... That's just the way the cookie crumbles. Tough calls. Real men. HUUH!
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 23:18
|
|
|
Cole posted:Pretend like this isn't a war, pretend like it is a group of heavily armed foreign soldiers coming down a street in New York. Should a woman who owns a grenade just let them invade her city? It's the same problem that a lot of people have with Ender's Game, funnily enough. It's a scene that should ask questions, but its depiction leaves no room for any other interpretation than "it was the right thing to do, and justified." And once again, even if you can justify that act (and the film can) you would hope that the film would wonder, at least a little, how everyone involved got to that point. The film presents it as a video game level, though. Nothing came before or after, it's entirely free of context or consequence. Snowman_McK fucked around with this message at 23:21 on Mar 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 23:18
|
|
|
Cole posted:Actually the horrifying realization that he shot a kid comes when he shoots a kid. Exactly. And the American audience is meant to feel that they pulled the trigger as well.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 23:19
|
|
|
Would you expect those foreign soldiers to just allow that woman to run up to them holding a grenade?
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 23:19
|
|
|
Cole posted:Actually the rules of engagement said "military aged males" were the enemy, not children or women, and the only child shot in the movie was carrying a bomb, which falls under "hostile act and hostile intent," which defaults whoever is exhibiting that, even if they are in a wheelchair, blind and rolling the wrong way, as an enemy combatant. We aren't talking about the actual rules of engagement, we are talking about the movie "American Sniper." There's a reason that both of the major child characters in the movie are portrayed as engaging in "hostile act and hostile intent" and it isn't verisimilitude, it's to set up, firstly, that there can be no moral question about anything the "American Sniper" does. We have to establish that there can be no possible moral problems with his actions, period, before we can establish that him feeling anxious is unjust. If the movie didn't establish that, then his suffering later would be viewed as mere weakness and "heart-bleeding" instead of the stoic patriotism that we get. socketwrencher posted:There are other ways to view it. I was horrified by it even though it was justified under the circumstances. The equation between killing a child and killing a deer is horrific. I suspect that most people viewed it as horrifying but maybe I'm wrong. In the south, deer hunting is viewed as evidence of skill. I think many people who saw the movie would view a comparison between killing a child-terrorist and killing a deer as an example of how his mastery filtered through to all aspects of his life, including his life as a civilian.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 23:20
|
|
|
socketwrencher posted:The movie you seem to want to see would contain the political maneuverings that led to the invasion and continue to this day. It would put a very specific spin on the movie that Eastwood seems to have deliberately avoided. This is a political issue, there's no getting around that. As hard as Eastwood may have tried, there's no way to make this film in a political vacuum, not now. So yea, I wanted to see Kyles story used to put out a message that I agree with, that I feel would actually be productive for our society. As it is the movie puts out the same message that's gotten us to this point where we invade countries and then act surprised when people shoot at our guys. If Eastwood purposely made a movie with the generic "war sucks" message, that's cowardly in my opinion, but you're not wrong that this is political.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 23:20
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:This is a political issue, there's no getting around that. As hard as Eastwood may have tried, there's no way to make this film in a political vacuum, not now. So yea, I wanted to see Kyles story used to put out a message that I agree with, that I feel would actually be productive for our society. You're asking for a movie called "Anti-American Sniper," it seems.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 23:21
|
|
|
Cole posted:You're asking for a movie called "Anti-American Sniper," it seems. Pretty much! A little on-the-nose though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 23:22
|
|
|
Mormon Star Wars posted:We aren't talking about the actual rules of engagement, we are talking about the movie "American Sniper." There's a reason that both of the major child characters in the movie are portrayed as engaging in "hostile act and hostile intent" and it isn't verisimilitude, it's to set up, firstly, that there can be no moral question about anything the "American Sniper" does. We have to establish that there can be no possible moral problems with his actions, period, before we can establish that him feeling anxious is unjust. If the movie didn't establish that, then his suffering later would be viewed as mere weakness and "heart-bleeding" instead of the stoic patriotism that we get. what the hell does this even mean RoE: Hostile act, hostile intent Mission: Protect ground troops. Chris Kyle: shoots a kid under those guidelines, struggles with it and moves on. These are accurate depictions of how people act in war. What the hell do you want from the movie? Watch Home of the Brave with 50 Cent and Jessica Biel. It seems to fall more in line with what you want from a war movie.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 23:23
|
|
|
Cole posted:Would you expect those foreign soldiers to just allow that woman to run up to them holding a grenade? Would you be defending their right to shoot her? Or wondering how the hell we got to the point of foreign troops wandering around New York and its citizens fighting to kick them out?
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 23:23
|
|
|
Snowman_McK posted:Would you be defending their right to shoot her? Or wondering how the hell we got to the point of foreign troops wandering around New York and its citizens fighting to kick them out? Would you expect those foreign soldiers to just allow that woman to run up to them holding a grenade? Answer mine and I'll answer yours.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 23:24
|
|
|
Cole posted:Would you expect those foreign soldiers to just allow that woman to run up to them holding a grenade? No, of course not. I'd also be really uncomfortable and horrified if a film came out depicting that as unambiguously the right thing to do.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 23:25
|
|
|
Mormon Star Wars posted:In the south, deer hunting is viewed as evidence of skill. I think many people who saw the movie would view a comparison between killing a child-terrorist and killing a deer as an example of how his mastery filtered through to all aspects of his life, including his life as a civilian. Agreed. I also think that many people see it another way. That's what makes it interesting. There are people who think we are still justified in being in Iraq, some that don't, some who don't think about it much at all. I just think that most people take away from the movie what they bring into it, and that concern about how it's interpreted changing or reinforcing opinions is overblown.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 23:25
|
|
|
Cole posted:what the hell does this even mean This isn't real life, this is a movie, so when director's put in characters and scenes they are doing it for a reason, and it's usually not "oh it would be very accurate to have this here." The child in the movie is a character in the movie, and his character is included for a reason - to cement the sainthood of the American Sniper so that later we can empathize with his suffering. The child is there because it washes away all moral questions: It's the moment that establishes that he couldn't ever really do anything wrong, because the people over there really are that bad, even (and especially) the children. This is repeated later when the child picks up the rocket launcher. That has to happen because, if killing the child was portrayed as something he had to struggle with (as opposed to struggling with "going to leavenworth" for doing his job) then later, when he is suffering from the PTSD symptoms you described in an earlier post, his PTSD would be viewed as weakness. It wouldn't be him suffering in innocence, it would be him suffering because he empathized with a cold and evil enemy. It would change the entire tone of the movie.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 23:29
|
|
|
Cole posted:Would you expect those foreign soldiers to just allow that woman to run up to them holding a grenade? To know if those soldiers are in the right for shooting a woman with a grenade I'd want to know the full context of why the soldiers are there. Killing in that situation is understandable, but that doesn't make it right. For it to be right I'd have to know a whole lot more about the situation. For instance in Iraq it was never right to shoot anyone because we shouldn't have been there in the first place. That doesn't mean I blame individual soldiers, I understand their actions but they were not right or just.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 23:33
|
|
|
Snowman_McK posted:No, of course not. I'd also be really uncomfortable and horrified if a film came out depicting that as unambiguously the right thing to do. It was unambiguously wrong for us to invade Iraq in the first place. I will always agree to that. It is one of the biggest foreign policy fuckups in United States history. However, the people who went to Iraq had no decision making power. A lot of people who are a part of the initial invasion of Iraq joined for reasons not related to Iraq at all. At that point, they were forced into a dogfight and had no choice. Sure you can make the case for being a conscientious objector, but given the way troops are trained, you put them in a mindset that it is the right thing to do. Call it brainwashing if you want. Once the troops were there, it was a "kill or be killed" scenario. That is not their fault. That is the fault of the government that put them there. If a woman in New York ran up on an invading army with a grenade and was shot because of it, I would want retribution. However, completely ignoring why that foreign army is there in the first place (in this case it wasn't the army that put them there, it was the civilians in charge of that army that put them there) is shortsighted. I would be more angry at the government that put that foreign army in the situation to shoot that woman, and I would rather take the fight directly to them than fight the ground troops that were invading. Unfortunately, you have to deal with your closest enemy because that is the most dangerous enemy at the moment. From the individual soldier's prospective, shooting someone coming at them with a bomb is unambiguously the right thing to do. However, how they got there, if you want to keep it based on the invasion of Iraq, is really hosed up. I am admittedly very horrible at explaining my stance on this. Honestly, if troops were invading the US based on a foreign policy agenda, I would feel bad for them being stuck there moreso than I would feel angry that they are there at all. I wouldn't feel bad for the government that put them there, that's where my anger would be concentrated. E: When you join the military you are a slave to your government's political agenda. Cole fucked around with this message at 23:42 on Mar 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 23:39
|
|
|
I think, that killing people, is bad. I also, think, that American Sniper is, bad, but not for, that reason.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 23:40
|
|
|
Cole is making a valid point, that you should be reading the film in front if you. The movie portrays the logic of Kyle (his sainthood to borrow from the previous post) as an unambiguous truth, and it is. The correct conclusion is not to abandon your horror, however (and portraying Kyle as an aberrant sociopath would be doing just that). The true reading should be to extend your outrage that Kyle is a perfectly logical extension or distillation of American exceptionalism and neo liberal western democracy. He is a saint eventually interned in the church of AT&T stadium. Of course, as a viewer now with additional context, we can appreciate the ironic joke off the ending: that Kyle was shot by a mentally ill man who was subsequently "sent to Leavenworth".
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 23:45
|
|
|
Cole posted:It was unambiguously wrong for us to invade Iraq in the first place. I will always agree to that. It is one of the biggest foreign policy fuckups in United States history. And you don't think any of these thoughts could have been included in American Sniper? Why not explore any of this? You're saying the movie is better for having ignored all of this?
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 23:46
|
|
|
Danger posted:neo liberal western democracy  if you think that in any way describes US foreign policy as seen by basically any other country in the world
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 23:53
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:And you don't think any of these thoughts could have been included in American Sniper? Why not explore any of this? You're saying the movie is better for having ignored all of this? I don't think you could make a movie with Chris Kyle as your focal point and effectively explore the things I mentioned. Could you make a movie that had Chris Kyle's character in it and explore those things? Yes, but it wouldn't be about Chris Kyle at that point.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 23:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 08:43 |
|
|
Cole posted:However, the people who went to Iraq had no decision making power. A lot of people who are a part of the initial invasion of Iraq joined for reasons not related to Iraq at all. At that point, they were forced into a dogfight and had no choice. Sure you can make the case for being a conscientious objector, but given the way troops are trained, you put them in a mindset that it is the right thing to do. Call it brainwashing if you want. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eichmann_in_JerusalemI mean, I hate to Godwin myself out of the argument, but that is, almost word for word, the Nuremberg defence. It's the essence of the phrase 'the banality of evil' If you agree that the war in Iraq was unjustified, then it's weird that you don't get people's problem with the film. To not even consider the right and wrong of the war and just focus on "in that moment, he totally had to kill that kid/woman/guy" is myopic. To structure the film as something that has a payoff (he kills Mustafa, allowing him a real, military triumph in a war that had no military triumph) frames the war in a nice, palatable way, rather than a pointless, slogging occupation. Actually, think about how the message of the film changes if you move the sniper duel to the first half. It puts it more in line with something like "The Men in Green Faces." I don't know if you've read it, but it starts out as a team of Navy SEALs fighting in Vietnam, and ends with a loving Kung Fu fight against the evil North Vietnamese colonel. quote:Once the troops were there, it was a "kill or be killed" scenario. That is not their fault. That is the fault of the government that put them there. quote:If a woman in New York ran up on an invading army with a grenade and was shot because of it, I would want retribution. However, completely ignoring why that foreign army is there in the first place (in this case it wasn't the army that put them there, it was the civilians in charge of that army that put them there) is shortsighted. quote:From the individual soldier's prospective, shooting someone coming at them with a bomb is unambiguously the right thing to do. However, how they got there, if you want to keep it based on the invasion of Iraq, is really hosed up. quote:Honestly, if troops were invading the US based on a foreign policy agenda, I would feel bad for them being stuck there moreso than I would feel angry that they are there at all. I wouldn't feel bad for the government that put them there, that's where my anger would be concentrated. Cole posted:I don't think you could make a movie with Chris Kyle as your focal point and effectively explore the things I mentioned. Could you make a movie that had Chris Kyle's character in it and explore those things? Yes, but it wouldn't be about Chris Kyle at that point. Snowman_McK fucked around with this message at 23:59 on Mar 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 23:56
|
|