|
Crain posted:If you've read the book, Eastwood/the producers actually toned down the Jingoism. The move presents a side of Kyle that is totally absent from his own Autobiography and focuses on it entirely (the PTSD). Funny thing: No mention of PTSD exists in his book. It's not mentioned by name, alluded to, nor is it's (potential) effect on Kyle mentioned. On the opposite side Kyle spends an absurd amount of time talking about the many physical injuries he suffered in Iraq. I've read the book but not seen the movie and am highly interested in your write up. I am surprised from what I hear everyone saying about the movie because Kyle comes off as a blowhard/psycho in his book and it seems something is lost in translation. Someone asked about the book and I described it as " Ricky Bobby and Seth Rogen from Observe and report put into a red white and blue blender"
|
#
¿
Jan 20, 2015 20:45
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 16:02 |
|
|
Slugworth posted:The movie fails because it doesn't show him shooting looters from the roof of the astrodome, doesn't show him beating up Jesse Ventura, and doesn't show him killing two carjackers and then having the responding officers call the Pentagon on a secret phone number to explain that everything is cool. He never beat Ventura up. He pretty much made it up whole clothe. He lost a defamation suit which is a pretty rare thing. He also explicitly lied and said all the proceeds of his book would go to families of soldiers who died in active combat. 52k of his 3m have been donated, with zero plans to make an NPO.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 20, 2015 23:51
|
|
|
Whoops. I'm excited about seeing it in theaters eventually as well as Crain's write up to prep me.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2015 03:31
|
|
|
GuyDudeBroMan posted:Just got back from this. Very powerful. Probably the most anti-war movie made in quite a while. Now that I think about it, I don't think ive ever seen an anti-war movie for a war passed Vietnam. This was a nice breath of fresh air. If you don't mind me asking, what characteristics of it make it anti war for you?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2015 07:48
|
|
|
SirDrinksAlot posted:After doing some google searching I honestly couldn't find anything other than one website which claimed he didn't donate any proceeds from his book. Then you suck at google: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/384176/justice-jesse-ventura-was-right-his-lawsuit-j-delgado There are also articles from the Washington Post and several other news orgs reporting the same thing. Multiple reporters have tried and failed to validate those claims (Nola sniping, defensive shoot, WMD retrieval, etc). Part of the reason Ventura won the lawsuit is that his council proved the book was for profit despite the claim that 100% of the profits would be donated. Ventura had pretty airtight evidence (he's on a huge blood thinner regiment and any hit that knocked him to the ground would have been readily evident). Winning defamation in the USA is exceptionally rare as you have to prove malice. There are worse things to do than lie, but to portray this dude as a reluctant hero rather than a murderous braggart is upsetting. If you saw a movie on how Timothy McVeigh was really a conflicted individual fighting against a savage world, you would rightly be very upset by painting him as a sympathetic character in order to revise popular history. That's how propaganda works. If you think watching a movie about something does not change the way you see it, then you seem woefully unaware of how propaganda and marketing work. mugrim fucked around with this message at 00:43 on Jan 25, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2015 00:29
|
|
|
meristem posted:side note: They don't really need to suck at google, though. Google may just suck for them. Personalised results may mean that if you are stuck in a conservative/liberal/whatevs bubble, you really, really need to make an effort (for example, reset your search history) to get out of it. Excellent point. I default to incognito mode for this reason since I do a bunch of SEO stuff, but obviously that's not everyone's experience. astupiddvdcase posted:I love how people of certain political leaning loves to bash all the movies with "liberal agendas about slavery" etc. etc. (not that oscar baiting films don't raise my eyebrows) and now they can't handle people being up in arms about American Sniper lol. Nice people don't tend to kill literal tons of people and then lie without regret publicly and often. Nice people don't think that a good way to make people think you're 'cool' is to lie about beating up an older man or shooting people during a natural disaster. Nice people don't tend to talk about how they love killing people and how it's the most fun they have ever had. I invite everyone to read the book. Aspiring to be a real life Frank Castle is atrocious.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2015 07:31
|
|
|
Eb posted:Great movie, definitely deserves the Oscar nomination for best picture. The problem is the lack of taking the book/Kyle head on. It kept the one dimensional nature of Kyle's perception of the enemy without also keeping Kyle's blood lust, and that's what presents most of the problems. Taxi Driver and Observe and Report both accomplished this, so the template was there. If the movie had a nuanced enemy then at least there would have been a balancing act, but injecting personable traits into someone who gleefully discussed their bloodlust while keeping their views of those they killed is effectively just propaganda used to justify said bloodlust.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2015 23:13
|
|
|
teagone posted:Dude was nuts, but I don't see him calling an entire ethnic group savages. The guy was a SEAL too. Aren't all SEAL operators alpha male types who joined the armed forces to just straight up kill? Only difference is Kyle got some publicity. You should read the book before you say those statements have been taken out of context. His feelings on killing muslims and iraqis are made boldly apparent in his book. There's no dog whistle involved, he straight up says he loves killing them.  There is a lot more just like that in the book, this just happens to be convenient. Kyle had a crusade mentality in the most literal sense and explicitly stated so. He lied about a whole lot of incidents that were made up entirely whole clothe. He still owes vets 3m that he clearly never planned on paying back (as evidenced by him immediately using the money to invest/start a business). He lied about beating up an old man . He lied about killing two carjackers. He lied about finding WMDs. He (hopefully) lied about killing dozons of people during Hurricane Katrina. The movie you saw has the perception of Chris Kyle's enemies through his eyes, but with Kyle seemingly conflicted. The dude wasn't conflicted at all based on his own book. He also 100% unironically and uncritically loved the Punisher and wanted to be Frank Castle. He tells the reader that his god is fine with him killing savages. The way to make the movie good was to take a Taxi Driver angle or better yet, The Informant!
|
|
#
¿
Jan 26, 2015 01:36
|
|
|
Jerry Manderbilt posted:Also, where exactly are the excerpts where he talks about sniping LOOTERS *wink wink* from the top of the Superdome? He told several members of the press in off air interviews: quote:"Years after those alleged killings, Kyle had another story to tell. This one referred to the vacuum of authority in New Orleans following Katrina, when the city slipped into chaos. According to the New Yorker and several military publications, Kyle and a few other SEALs drank late in San Diego late one night in early 2012. “The SEALs began telling stories, and Kyle offered a shocking one,” the New Yorker reported. “…He and another sniper traveled to New Orleans, set up on top of the Superdome, and proceed to shoot dozens of armed residents who were contributing to the chaos.” The magazine said one conversation participant said Kyle “claimed to have shot thirty men on his own,” while another said Kyle and the other killed 30 between them." Here is the Original New Yorker article.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 26, 2015 01:55
|
|
|
teagone posted:Chill. I said I didn't read the book and just asked for some sources is all. I was presented with lines of text that seemed out of context. But with all the poo poo you just said, ok cool I get it. Kyle was probably a lying piece of poo poo who got a movie made about his supposed exploits as a SEAL sniper and general real life "badassery". He's dead now though. Are you trying to convince me that American Sniper paints a disgusting picture of America's prejudice towards Iraq and Muslims through the eyes of a sociopathic rear end in a top hat? Because I honestly don't give a poo poo about Kyle's viewpoints or who he was. I'm willing to bet like every 3 out of 4 SEALs are just like him. His kill record as a SEAL sniper specifically is probably true and there is no reason to suspect he didn't kill at least 160 people. It's all the other shi. To the question in bold: Yes, yes I am. The problem is keeping his viewpoint of a one dimensional enemy that needs to be exterminated, without keeping his personality in tact. It effectively 'grounds' the horrific perspective and makes you examine the material less critically than you would otherwise. This is done in a lot of fictional narratives so you don't really think all that much about Orcs/Nazis/whatever being massacred (which can also be problematic as they're often analogues).The problem with doing this 'based on a true story' is the issues it causes on people's perceptions of reality. People think the movie is 'mostly true' and there's a new surge in patriotism/anti-muslim sentiment. I earnestly believe this sentiment would be less intense if Kyle was portrayed as having fun with the whole thing. People would be horrified. Show him lying constantly. Show him smiling over and over and treating it like a video game. When someone is conflicted they assume a sense of honor that really isn't there and that's part of the problem with trying to eliminate blood lust in a mass killer. But it gets deeper than that. It's effectively a retelling of both the lost cause confederate trope as well as that of the chivalrous knight. It's that idea of killers with honor who hold true to a code in defense of country and life. But the reality is all those things are lovely and done for lovely reasons. If you don't mind killing, you typically don't mind breaking any code you proclaim to have as a general rule. It's a nostalgic view of the past that is put there to make people more comfortable instead of showing something even moderately genuine. Eb posted:That was just a drunken tall tale? You guys made it seem like he devoted an entire chapter of his book to it. It was, but the Ventura story was told several times on air, as well as promising to donate all proceeds from the book (which is part of why I bought the book when it was being advertised), as well as his interview where he discusses a defensive shoot in Texas that never happened. Also, the WMD story is explicitly in the book. The only one of those that is hearsay is the Katrina story and for that story he told multiple people including another seal who put it in their book. mugrim fucked around with this message at 02:44 on Jan 26, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jan 26, 2015 02:36
|
|
|
Even the trailer put me off a bit initially. The phrase "They fry you if you're wrong" is completely untrue and anyone who has an ounce of military history/engagement knowledge knows it. The last military execution was about half a century ago. What this line ALSO does is give the impression that every single death in Iraq (women and children included) are justifiable because if they weren't, Soldiers would be executed left and right based on that information. It's a huge affront to the reality of the conflict. It's inherently problematic as it essentially justifies the entire military aspect of the conflict. It makes Kyle a conflicted character facing death on and off the battlefield, under a microscope, who is conflicted about what he is doing rather than a guy who really just likes to kill people to look like a bad rear end.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 26, 2015 03:13
|
|
|
teagone posted:I never said the criticism of the movie being like Nazi propaganda was wrong. So if you saw a well shot "David Duke: The Real Story" where a young idealistic man is attacked by gangs and fights back against them, and starts a movement to clean up the streets with his friends against a political establishment that ignores the pain of his people, would you care about who Duke actually was? What his real opinions were? That's the problem with portraying people who are real and rewriting history with them. You can make the same movie and just rewrite the name as someone else, the point of using a real name is to discuss a real thing that happened. Doing all of these things and then being dishonest with the source material is problematic for a ton of reasons.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 26, 2015 06:45
|
|
|
Well killing thousands of them probably didn't do a lot to promote warm feelings towards the west (especially considering it was an unprovoked attack from a former ally). That, and destabilizing a country is pretty much just making it a no man's land for whatever semi-organized force wants to do their thing. If Canada started rolling tanks down main street I don't see why I'm supposed to avoid immediately hating them. If the radical religious fundamentalists in my own country begin violently trying to take the country or their region back, I'm not going to stop hating the invaders, especially considering that they're the reason the power vacuum exists in the first place. This view isn't represented in the movie. The masses of people who are just witnesses and casualties to this war who die and live in fear simply because of an invading force. They are not at all represented in the movie. The people simply trying to get by in an active war zone. This is the problem with trying to 'humanize*' someone like Kyle. It creates the false belief in a common warrior code embodied in honor and righteousness. The reality is that as a general rule, if you're totally cool killing lots of people there's pretty much nothing else you won't do. The fact many Americans can't even comprehend the idea of Kyle being the psychopathic liar that all evidence points to is because it immediately and directly injects chaos into your worldview. After all, if killing someone is not done by men with honor, that means we live in a world where killers lie, cheat, and steal and that would mean we're pretty much at the whim of the worst parts of society. It directly means we don't live in a just world. People do not get what they deserve, good or bad. It's important to question where you are and what you are doing. *I should be clear, by humanize I mean to try and make him a likeable character in a movie rather than to try and be somewhat honest to who he was or at the very least how he presents himself. The irony is that they actually dehumanize him by creating a facade of a real person and painting them up. mugrim fucked around with this message at 06:36 on Jan 28, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jan 28, 2015 06:30
|
|
|
GuyDudeBroMan posted:Wow, the Baghdad theater audience response to this was not what I was expecting at all. Did you guys see this? An Anti-war movie should focus on those who are killed en masse. At best you could generously say it was 'anti-American involvement', and even then that would be a lie. The real movie that stressed that point would have been to portray Kyle accurately, as a monster. By NOT portraying him as the real life monster he was, you inherently hide the fact that war can exaggerate/create real monsters. Not broken men who occasionally drink too much, or have bad dreams when narratively convenient, but legit blood in teeth monsters who enjoy and love killing. When you make the person more affable and family friendly, you inherently justify their actions.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 3, 2015 05:13
|
|
|
tbp posted:That was him justifying it to himself he didnt't actually believe it Then maybe don't write about a real person or a real war even? When you do that, you are inherently creating a set of both standards and a new set of ethics. Crain posted:Right, and then because they removed that scene they had to invent other scenes to "re-humanize" him. They really should have planned out their story points better. She assisted with the movie. With millions of dollars the Kyle family still owes veterans that's sitting in her account, she was given Charity for the amount of 62k. She's yet to give it out (which seems an odd choice considering most millionaires don't get charity given to them). Despite losing the lawsuit to Ventura, and rightly so, she's continuing the suit in a higher court. She's dragging their family into the public eye, pretending they're not there won't do anything. Pedro De Heredia posted:This is not true at all. Okay, a 'good' anti-war movie. Focusing on psychological damage on the side that doesn't have killing field amounts of body dumps is a bit less "Anti-war" and more "War is serious/harms our soldiers" As a country it's irresponsible to invade a country, kill tons of people, and then whine about how your people need mental health care because they saw some 'real poo poo' as they were massacring hundreds of thousands. When you make a movie that focuses on the mental damage, you are inherently valuing it equally if not greater than others deaths. Here's a serious question: Why do most war movies involve soldiers as protagonists, despite the fact that the people who are involved in war are more often than not are civilians?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2015 03:17
|
|
|
Tatum Girlparts posted:She (or Kyle? Forgot) started a charity to help vets with PTSD, that's how he was at the gun range with the dude who shot him. The charity is now (or maybe always was) running into a hole at rapid speed because no one is using the money they get for charity things. Along with that they said most of the book money would go to some cause but as of last checking almost none has. That one was pretty unofficial and was essentially just shooting with dudes he knew and creating a relatively informal network. The Kyle family total paid out to charity as of a month or so ago was like 52k out of millions (with 100% promised, estimates hover around 6m right now). This was a completely separate thing. His wife donated his rifles to a completely separate charity run by americansnipers.org and they turned around and gave her the 62k made off the rifles sales by saying that the raffle was a farce and they wanted to help the Kyle family. The polite thing to do is to then turn around and go "Oh, I donate this to americansnipers.org or insert charity here! (because I got millions in the bank)".
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2015 06:07
|
|
|
Cole posted:yeah the movie had all this in it that is why it belongs in this thread There was a claim earlier that 'the family' should be left out of discussion of the movie. My point is that the family (Specifically Taya) has very clearly put themselves in the public eye, and for quite a pretty penny, so pretending involving them at all is wrong is kinda odd. The narrative of the movie is so overwhelming that people were actually convinced that she's in dire need of funds to the point of raising cash to give her. The reason this is relevant for the movie is it's place as propaganda. It sells a strong narrative that is almost completely false yet completely envelopes people. They assume they are watching the truth, so much so that people are being swayed back to thinking OIF was a good thing.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2015 06:56
|
|
|
Pedro De Heredia posted:Many well-known films that are considered 'anti-war' are about soldiers. You are free to believe in the idea that a 'good' anti-war movie can only be about the losing side's civilians' dying, but it's not some super popular notion. Just because a movie has a semi-tragic ending involving a protagonist does not mean it's not inherently glorifying what happens in the interim. Pedro De Heredia posted:War harming soldiers is part of an anti-war message, since soldiers are human beings and citizens who in many cases were conscripted, or in many cases the army was the best path they thought they could take, or whatever. In the case of America's wars, soldiers (and their relatives, friends, etc.) are likely to be the only people from America who are suffering from the war, since the wars are fought elsewhere. If the soldiers killing others is glamorized and the pain is injected to make them relatable in an asymmetrical war, that's an issue with your anti-war movie. The guy who is rarely portrayed in "Anti-war" movies who needs to be there is the real life Chris Kyle, which is why I was super excited when the movie was announced. Harsh Times is arguably a better anti-war movie than most of the ones people want to list in general. It at least really examines a broken person without trying to clean it up. Pedro De Heredia posted:American civilians aren't being killed in America's wars. That's probably why. You could also say that war movies about civilians being murdered and thrown in a ditch wouldn't be very interesting. That would absolutely be interesting. The reason what you call an "anti-war movie" is interesting is because it's glamorizing and thus endorsing what happens. An Anti-war movie that finds itself being 'interesting' by having the protagonists kill 'the other' is inherently flawed in it's purpose.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2015 05:38
|
|
|
Grizzled Patriarch posted:For the sake of argument I'm willing to believe that Eastwood didn't deliberately set out to make a pro-war film, but at the very least he fell into the trap of glorifying the noble soldier and handwaving away the consequences that war has on a civilian population, which is certainly not a flaw unique to this film. I mean, it's probably an unpopular opinion, but I think Hurt Locker has a lot of the same problems as this film does, it's just not quite as overt and the film itself is actually well-crafted. I think Eastwood's (and Kyle's) personal politics are much more vile though, so that on top of of everything else, American Sniper is pushing a pretty hosed up agenda. Pretty much this. If this movie resonates with you, understand that it's designed to explicitly. Lies can feel stronger than the truth, especially when the lie tries to make a pretty terrible person palatable. The reason the movie is clearly not "Anti-war" is because it made it more palatable. The real Chris Kyle portrayed even semi-accurately to his own memoir would be enough to turn most people off and go "Oh poo poo, maybe some people really do just love killing people".
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2015 03:39
|
|
|
Smoothrich posted:Every nation has its soldiers and every war has its reasons. Up to you how you feel about them. It is actually not up to people how they feel about them, that is kind of the point of propaganda (and all good marketing for that matter). It is why American Sniper is effective propaganda. It displaces the horrors of war to the side that afflicted said horrors (and experienced far less than its victims) and directly tries to reinforce a false narrative for the war while simultaneously pretending it is taking a neutral stance.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2015 19:12
|
|
|
socketwrencher posted:By removing some of the more disturbing aspects of Kyle's character, perhaps Eastwood was trying to deglorify both Kyle and the war itself. We see Kyle grimly doing his job, and coming back a broken man- hardly the stuff that recruiting videos are made of. I would argue this movie does not portray a 'broken man' on screen. What the movie shows is the mental equivalent of a cop getting shot in the shoulder in an action movie. It affects the character but it's used as an example of a 'flesh wound', enough to slow our guy down but not enough to stop him. This is further emphasized when he assumes a role 'rehabilitating' others with it, thus asserting his dominant role. Notice he's not divorced, his kids don't even seem to hate him, he's not been hospitalized. Real PTSD is a lot harder. High divorce rates, suicide, estrangement, violence, severe substance abuse, homelessness, etc. Snowman_McK posted:No one's going to watch this movie and have their opinion entirely changed. That's called "The Magic Bullet" effect in communications studies, and it's been debunked. What is the problem is a saturation effect. That connection got mentioned over and over, between Iraq and Al Qaeda, and so people accepted (it also got repeated in news stories, and I use the word news quite loosely) American Sniper adding its voice to that senseless repetition of that connection, in the year 2015, while emphasising over and over that it is based on a true story, is irresponsible at best. There is a ripple effect for popular enough media. A movie comes out, O'Reilly then talks about, then Glenn Beck, then the lovely radio morning zoo, now Seth Rogen is talking about it, and by the time it's done and back around it has been thoroughly substantiated and validated. The truth 'lies in the middle' no matter where it originated.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 23, 2015 04:15
|
|
|
Smoothrich posted:Do people not understand how lots of Americans ended up enlisting into the military after their patriotism was stirred by the events of 9/11? Pretty common shared experience. The Nightly Show's episode on the film had a US sniper admit that is what made him sign up himself, and talks candidly about his experiences killing people and struggling to adjust to society after four or five tours in Middle East wars. Then name it American Soldier instead of American Sniper? With Chris Johnson instead of Kyle? The reason Kyle's count is so high is in part due to the fact he had experience and training PRIOR to the invasion and prior to the surge of Americans enlisting. Why even use a real person? This movie would have actually been cheaper if they made it up whole clothe.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 23, 2015 04:38
|
|
|
Smoothrich posted:He wrote a best selling memoir about it. I knew nothing about Chris Kyle and I'm afraid people's preconceptions of a guy who lived in the information age where anybody can be a wiki expert really ruined this movie for people. Like people watched this film with Michael Moores fat face bleating out disparaging tweets as running commentary and the idea of a screen play adaptation can nowadays be spun as unethical distortion of facts. Almost none of his memoir is in the movie. That's kind of the point. I read his book when it came out (in fact, he sold me on the "All proceeds will go to the families of soldiers fallen in combat" thing). You can't have it both ways. It's either based on a real story and should be treated as such, or it's not. If I make a movie called "The Real Story of Netanyahu" and it reads like "Articles of the Elders of Zion", that is troubling. If someone followed up saying "Well, you can't judge it as propaganda, it's just a movie" they would rightly be called out. Edit: Serious question, did you ever read the book? Smoothrich posted:Talking about the facts of Chris Kyle is to me like criticizing the design of Transformers robots as ruining ur immersion cuz it don't match your original manga. Then blaming it on Fox News. Transformers are not real. That's kind of the distinction.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 23, 2015 05:43
|
|
|
Grizzled Patriarch posted:Have you heard of this thing called "voting"? Or joining the military. I mean, foreign policy is definitely dictated in large part by soldiers as well as civilians. The larger the military force the more reason to use it. Hammer and nail and all. It doesn't get more political than going to a country and killing people in it. And that's a pretty disturbing thought to most people. Foreign policy is dictated in large part by public perception. War is a sustained effort that requires a lot of people. Attempts to build false narratives to foster the correct public perception is very much a key part of propaganda. I would argue that it is the propaganda of comfort. We need a just world where America acts rightly, where the real horror of war is not hundreds of thousands of dead and maimed people but rather that our strong white American hero has kind of a rough time connecting with his family while enjoying the spoils of the first world. This is why how the movie is shot is so manipulative. For example, the line "They'll fry you if you're wrong" is completely a lie. It's been half a century since the last American soldier was executed by the government. Our military is actually extraordinarily kind to both over use of force and violating ROE. There's a ton of training on ROE, but violations are very rarely met with actual criminal punishment. But that is not the world of the movie. In the world of the movie Kyle is the true believer and martyr. Similar narratives existed in the antebellum south for pretty much the same reasons. One thing that is interesting is the "Sheep dog" speech. Think about how that scene sets up the entire movie. It sets the narrative, yet it is completely false even within the story. Unless the roles are switched. Sheepdogs protect a herd of sheep, wolves come in a pack to prey on sheep. So in terms of the war scenes, who is who given the narrative laid out? mugrim fucked around with this message at 07:03 on Feb 23, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Feb 23, 2015 06:59
|
|
|
Smoothrich posted:You know let Clint Eastwood himself defend the movie in this thread. The big question then becomes, why didn't he embrace Chris Kyle's philosophy? I get that he's using those words, but they are hollow. Kyle very clearly loved killing and attested to such on multiple occasion in both his memoir and interviews. Basic tenets of his philosophy are not only ignored but rewritten (including how he joined the military, which seems to be what Eastwood thinks is the most important).
|
|
#
¿
Feb 23, 2015 07:35
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
GuyDudeBroMan posted:This is the movie I'm going to show to my 15 year old sons to convince them to never join the military. Seriously, what movie made in the last 10 years is more anti war than this? This movie is the best thing to happen to the anti-war movement in at least the last 5 years by far. Explain what aspects of this movie are anti-war please.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2015 13:20
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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. Actually Kyle (both movie and real Kyle) reenlisted multiple times. You can't say you are just following orders when you choose repeatedly to follow said orders once out of the situation.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2015 12:59
|
|
|
Cole posted:Pop quiz: what did I say about people being brainwashed? I certainly did not miss it. It's interesting to me personally that you think humans are uninfluenced by a major movie in pop culture watched by millions who never read a thing about Iraq, but that they are so malleable that someone who enlists is forever blameless and without agency no matter how many times they sign back up for any terrible thing they do.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2015 16:07
|
|
|
Cole posted:Are you really comparing the viewing experience of a two hour movie to 9+ weeks of basic training/boot camp? All that 2 hour movie needs to accomplish is to connect a few dots in the popular zeitgeist that Iraq was justified and that Iraqi's/arabs/Muslims are just trying to kill us. This is a pretty easy thing to do in a narrative. That 9 weeks of boot camp you are saying will so radically change someone that killing children is something people can't judge, even years down the line when the option exists (multiple times) to stop killing kids. Are you saying that 9 weeks of boot camp absolves someone's decisions for the rest of their life?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2015 16:19
|
|
|
Cole posted:You're really comparing a two hour movie to 9+ weeks of basic training and boot camp... The first merely changes some opinion through saturation, the second removes agency from people for killing kids years later. Its traditionally much easier to change some peoples opinion through mass media than convincing people its a-okay to shoot kids. Do you disagree?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2015 16:43
|
|
|
Cole posted:I already said you win. Learn to be a good winner. I'm more interested in your answer than "winning"
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2015 16:56
|
|
|
Cole posted:You could have an entire town on the east coast get slaughtered, but as long as it doesn't affect someone directly in another area, it will stay an isolated incident and nothing will really be done about it to change anything. Counterpoint: 
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2015 17:56
|
|
|
Smoothrich posted:You think US soldiers have a moral obligation to murder their commanding officers when they were fighting ISIS? Lmao someone should "frag" you for your posting that would be justifiable homicide probably. As opposed to the invasion, which was 100% obviously justified and resulted in no unjustified killings. This is what I wish the movie would have focused on, the lies people tell themselves. This is hinted at with Kyle's father when he discusses wolves, sheep dogs, and sheep. In this scenario wolves would traditionally represent an outside party of killers coming to a farm or shepherds territory. A sheep dog would be those who can kill but do so to defend the sheep from outside invaders. In this scenario, US soldiers are not sheep dogs but rather wolves. They are not defending the home front, but rather are an invading force within the movies own context. Kyle unfortunately does not seem to really grapple this reality within the movie and the only hint of it is the mention of his father. I actually do not remember the sheepdog portion of the book (It's been a while since then), but I've definitely heard it in a lot of law enforcement/military circles as a regular thing.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2015 20:05
|
|
|
Reminded me of the skull emblem within the movie. And it brings me back to the wolf analogy. Is the movie promoting that the US military are wolves? If not, what sheep is our hero kyle defending?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 11, 2015 06:12
|
|
|
Armyman25 posted:The sheep are the American people, the wolves are Al Qaeda, and the US is the sheep dog. The American people are perfectly safe in America though. It is not until the invasion and power vacuum created by a distracted Saddam that AQ in Iraq really had any kind of strength. The American territory lacks any kind of actual threat from Iraq. Likewise, the imagery used is one of defense, especially in regards to land. sheep and sheep dogs move together and the sheep dogs are needed when an outside force (wolves) come in. If the sheepdog leaves the sheep to chase wolves for a few thousand miles, it's a pretty lovely dog isn't it? The analogy seems more prevalent in the law enforcement community than military. While it's use is ultimately partly justification and partly an entitlement to violence, it at least serves better for someone who may actually have to kill someone to defend an American non-killer's life. This analogy falls apart once your army invades a country that did not attack it under the guise of a preemptive strike. Even the basic sheep dog analogy breaks down. Sheep dogs stay with the flock until they see some poo poo, then they react, and when they do they're typically trained to ward off the threat and immediately return to the flock, never leaving it out of sight (I actually own a sheep dog and have had the pleasure of seeing this happen multiple times with your chickens and ducks). They are very territorial and do not like to leave a flock. Armyman25 posted:Also, that skit is the most tiresome bunch of poo poo. Soldiers have been using scary imagery to hype themselves up and/or intimidate their enemies since the dawn of time.  "Why, you could even say that violence is a final solution!" Well lets see what they say on it's symbolism: quote:The story behind the Craft Skull logo combines several meaningful pieces of our founder's life and service to this great nation, but mainly honors his fallen teammates. As part of SEAL Team 3, he and his fellow teammates painted similar skulls on their gear in order to strike fear in the enemy. The crosshair symbolizes his time spent on a sniper rifle and is also in the form of a templar cross to symbolize his faith. Lastly, the crosshair is on the right eye to honor SO2 Ryan Job USN (SEAL), who was critically wounded when he was shot in the right eye while on deployment to Iraq in 2006. In case you happen to be unfamiliar: quote:Officially endorsed by the Roman Catholic Church around 1129, the Order became a favoured charity throughout Christendom and grew rapidly in membership and power. Templar knights, in their distinctive white mantles with a red cross, were among the most skilled fighting units of the Crusades. Oh great, knights from the literal crusades. Yep, just good ole' boys defending the homefront, no desire to purge the world of muslims here! Within the movie, the skull is actually referenced directly as the Punisher skull. The comic makes an on screen appearance even. This is really loving disturbing for a number of reasons. Here is Kyle's statement on Frank Castle from his book: quote:We called ourselves the Punishers. Literally Chris Kyle saying "We are the bad guys" like the sketch as he promotes acting like an actual home grown street gang, tagging the world with promises of future violence. Marking his territory like a wolf. The Punisher is actually a complete loving psycho and that is not a liberal view of it, it is the view held by almost every fictional character in the Marvel Universe. Captain America (more imagery) aligns himself with the Punisher in Civil War, and considers it to have been such a mistake that he actually realizes how low he has sunk and gives up. Pretty much any time someone has to team up with Punisher it is terrifying for them because his answer is to kill the world. mugrim fucked around with this message at 13:52 on Mar 11, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Mar 11, 2015 13:47
|
|
|
Cole posted:There are about 3000 people who would like to have a word with you if they weren't dead. Are you saying Iraq attacked the US during the 9/11 attacks? Is it your opinion that pre-invasion Iraq posed a credible threat to the US?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 11, 2015 14:05
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 16:02 |
|
|
Cole posted:No. I don't feel like explaining the obvious. But read what I quoted and then read what I said. Read what I said. quote:The American people are perfectly safe in America though. It is not until the invasion and power vacuum created by a distracted Saddam that AQ in Iraq really had any kind of strength. The American territory lacks any kind of actual threat from Iraq. It was obviously very specific to Iraq.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 11, 2015 14:17
|
|