|
Steve Yun posted:Is there no possibility that there's some ironic angle or something on this movie? Hard to believe that the guy who made Letters from Iwo Jima, a movie humanizing enemy combatants, [b]would make a straight jingoistic war propaganda movie.]/b] 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'm going to do a larger write up because I've been waiting for a place to talk about this (that isn't reddit, where any in depth analysis is met with "lol it was a good movie shut up"). There are a number a major changes made between the book and the movie that end up presenting an entirely different person than who Kyle himself said he was. I know that the man was probably a habitual liar, but his own version of his life still matters when it comes to the way the public ends up perceiving him.
|
#
¿
Jan 20, 2015 19:53
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 17:51 |
|
|
Stare-Out posted:Letters from Iwo Jima was a good movie. But Eastwood also made Flags of Our Fathers the same year as a counterpart to it which made the former less effective for me. "Flags" wasn't quite as revoltingly patriotic as this movie is but was more like a wet fart after "Letters". I'm actually wondering how much power Eastwood had over this film. Remember it was originally a Spielberg project before he dropped out for whatever reason. So the script was already written when Eastwood was brought on. The "paint the rabid jingoist as a sympathetic/tragic character" may have been a producer decision in response to how the general public has shifted on it's support of the Iraq war. Instead of the "gently caress the ragheads! were are liberators!" Kyle they decided to present the "Oh god I was just trying to do my best! But even with good intentions I have been broken by WAR!" Kyle.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 20, 2015 19:58
|
|
|
Zerilan posted:Anyone have some excerpts from the book that showcase the insane jingoism/racism I hear it has? Working on it. But here's one from the end of the book that really illustrates Kyle's stance: quote:I don’t spend a lot of time philosophizing about killing people. I have a clear conscience about my role in the war. I am a strong Christian. Not a perfect one—not close. But I strongly believe in God, Jesus, and the Bible. When I die, God is going to hold me accountable for everything I’ve done on earth.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 20, 2015 21:57
|
|
|
^^Well lucky you^^ (WARNING MASSIVE EFFORT POST AND SPOILERS AHEAD) I’m going to be focusing primarily on Chris Kyle’s representation in the film and in his book and not the overall depiction of the military. There isn’t much to say about the military here since it’s the same kind of depiction that they have received in popular culture for the last 15 or so years. There is one thing I will say about the depiction of the military though, or rather Kyle’s specific SEAL platoon, as it pertains to what I think the film is trying to do with how it represents Kyle. The first thing I think everyone should do, if they haven’t already and even then go and do it again, is read the book and then watch the movie, in that order, one right after the other. There is a major case of revisionist history going on in this movie when it comes to who Chris Kyle was. There are 6 major scenes or topics that are covered in both the film and book that when examined in connection with each other show how much of an attempt was made to completely whitewash who Chris Kyle was. On top of that the changes made end up making him less likeable in some cases. I know it’s almost a trope that adaptations are usually lazy and don’t care to have their changes make contextual sense but there are a few scenes that directly contradict each other in what they attempt to portray Kyle as. So the 6 scenes/topics are: -The opening scene (book and movie) -The RPG scene (book and movie) -Mustafa and the Butcher (Almost entirely movie) -Marc Lee’s Funeral (book and movie) -Ryan Job’s death (book and movie) -PTSD (entirely movie) I’m going to simply detail the differences (if possible) between the book version and the movie version of each of these items first and then go into talking about my interpretation of why those changes were made. The Openings Scene: Book version: quote:“I watched our troops pull up. Ten young, proud Marines in uniform got out of their vehicles and gathered for a foot patrol. As the Americans organized, the woman took something from beneath her clothes, and yanked at it. She’d set a grenade. I didn’t realize it at first. Movie Version (Summarized by myself since I can’t just link to a video, But if you have your own copy via means then the time stamps are: 00:01:24-00:04:30 and 00:27:24-00:29:22): In the movie we see Kyle on overwatch as he spots a woman and a child approach a convoy of Marines. The woman hands the child a grenade and he runs at the Marines. His team mate makes mention of the ROEs (rules of engagement, in the book it's usually abbreviated with the 's' on the end so I'm leaving it) and how if he's wrong he'll be sent to prison. Kyle attempts to get a second set of eyes and confirmation on the situation and is told it's his call. The scene then shifts and tells the quick story of his live up to the point in the opening. This takes about 20 min. After that we see a replay of the exact scene, then find out that Kyle did in fact shoot the child. Then after the child is shot the woman goes for the grenade and is also shot. The grenade falls short, injuring no one. After this Kyle's teammate says both "That was gnarly" (about the child) and "Fuckin' evil Bitch." (about the woman). He then slaps Kyle's shoulder trying to congratulate him and Kyle tells him, clearly stressed, "Get the gently caress off me". The next scene Kyle shows he is somewhat shaken up about it, but knows he made the right call. The RPG Scene: Book Version: quote:“An hour later, another guy poked his head out from behind a wall on another part of the street. He glanced in the direction of the T-wall, then pulled back. It may have seemed innocent to someone else—and certainly didn’t meet the ROEs—but I knew to watch more carefully. I’d seen insurgents follow this same pattern now for years. They would peek out, glance around, then disappear. I called them “peekers”—they “peeked” out to see if anyone was watching. I’m sure they knew they couldn’t be shot for glancing around. I knew it, too. But I also knew that if I was patient, the guy or whoever he was spotting for would most likely reappear. Sure enough, the fellow reappeared a few moments later. He had an RPG in his hand. He knelt quickly, bringing it up to aim. I dropped him before he could fire. Then it became a waiting game. The rocket was valuable to them. Sooner or later, I knew, someone would be sent to get it. I watched. It seemed like forever. Finally, a figure came down the street and scooped up the grenade launcher. It was a kid. A child. I had a clear view in my scope, but I didn’t fire. I wasn’t going to kill a kid, innocent or not. I’d have to wait until the savage who put him up to it showed himself on the street.” (Please take heavy note of the last few lines). Movie Version (Timestamp if you have it: 01:35:10-01:37:20): “The scene start with Kyle in Sadr City (it's not stated in the film but based on his book that's where this is supposed to have taken place). He's doing overwatch on the construction project to build a large concrete wall that will make a secure border around the already established Green Zone. It's an attempt to push the insurgents out of rocket range of the Green Zone. We see a child sitting on the sidewalk as a car goes down a side street next to him. A man gets out and aims an RPG at the construction workers. Kyle shoots him deal quickly. Almost immediately the kid jumps up and goes over the now dead man as a few cries of confusions over the shot are heard from the people on the street. Kyle looks up a little confused as the kid runs to the dead man. The kid looks around with a dumb look on his face and tongue out before picking the RPG up. Kyle goes back to looking through his scope to observe what happens. He pleads from afar with the kid: "Don't pick it up. Don't you fuckin' pick it up. Sonovabitch. You fuckin' drop it. Drop it you little fucker." While saying this the kid proceeds to struggle lifting the RPG, points it around for a second, then drops it and quickly runs away. Kyle then sputters and coughs, looking like he might throw up.” Mustafa and the Butcher: Book version: quote:“While we were on the berm watching the city, we were also watching warily for an Iraqi sniper known as Mustafa. From the reports we heard, Mustafa was an Olympics marksman who was using his skills against Americans and Iraqi police and soldiers. Several videos had been made and posted, boasting of his ability. I never saw him, but other snipers later killed an Iraqi sniper we think was him.” Movie Version: There isn’t a single scene to summarize here. The story of “Mustafa” and the butcher makes up a large portion of the movie. The first mention of “Mustafa” comes at 00:27:10 and mostly follows the book in the sense that he’s some ghostly figure that sounds more like campfire tale than a real, or at least a single, person. The first mention of the Butcher is at 00:43:20 when the Iraqi family is being interrogated after having their house raided. We finally see both of them around 00:46:26 during the mission to get the previously mentioned Iraqi. After that these two are the main “villains” for the movie. Mustafa in particular becomes something like a rival for Kyle, taking on a role akin to Ed Harris’s role of Erwin Konig in “Enemy at the Gates”. These rival snipers keep fighting to take each other down (Mustafa in once scene is shown as having put up Kyle’s “wanted poster” in his house) until finally Kyle catches him unaware in the climax of the movie where he takes Mustafa down with a 2100 yard shot (This is stolen whole cloth from an entirely different story from the book). The Butcher storyline is also just sorta dropped after he gets away during another mission. Marc Lee’s Funeral: Book Version: quote:“After her son’s death, Marc Lee’s mom, Debbie, became almost a surrogate mother to the other members of our platoon. A very courageous woman, she has (The site still works if you want to read the letter yourself) Movie Version (Timestamp: 01:27:46-01:30:25): The scene starts with Kyle on an Honor Flight back to the states with what we have to assume is Marc Lee’s body. This leads into the funeral proper where Marc Lee’s mother is reading a final letter he sent home just before being killed in action. She does her best to keep reading but ends up breaking down after a few lines (For the curious the lines being read are the opening lines of the letter and are the actual lines written. Which for all that the movie has changed so far makes it an odd exception). After that there is a 21 gun salute (During which Kyle and other military members are explicitly shown to not flinch at the shots. Civilian actors perform some obviously fake flinching while Kyle remains statue still), the flag is given to Lee’s widow, the SEALs present punch their SEAL medals into the coffin, and everyone departs (Real tradition by the way). We then join Kyle and Taya in the car driving away. Kyle becomes preoccupied with observing a van driving behind them which alludes to earlier scenes where terrorists attacked via car “kamikaze”, this is also a nod toward Kyle’s potential PTSD. Taya asks Kyle what he thought of the letter. Kyle’s response is “A QI informant had called in a tip and, uh, Biggles (Ryan Job) had just been shot and we were operatin’ out of emotion and we just walked right into an ambush. But, that’s not what killed ‘im. That letter did, that letter killed Marc. He just, he let go and just…paid the price for it.” Ryan Job’s Death: Book: This is a topic that doesn’t have a single quote. But the basic rundown of Ryan Job’s post injury life (the injury is mostly consistent between the book and movie and not really important by itself) this this: After being injured and going through reconstructive surgery Ryan got married “he went to college, graduated with honors, and had an excellent job waiting for him. He climbed Mount Hood, Mount Rainer, and a bunch of other mountains; he went hunting and shot a prize trophy elk with the help of a spotter and a gun with some bad-rear end technology; he competed in a triathlon. I remember one night Ryan said that he was glad it was he who got shot instead of any of the other guys”. Then in 2010 Ryan Job died of complications during another surgery for chronic illness related to is injury in Iraq. To be clear: This is well after Kyle had left his last tour and was debating on whether or not to reenlist. Movie: (Timestamp: 01:34:38, it’s one line) In the movie Kyle finds out about Ryan’s death during what would have been his 3rd tour of 4 (based on when events happened in the book, it’s never clearly stated in the movie what tour he’s on and which “home scenes” are for tour breaks or for special circumstances like Marc Lee’s funeral). This moves the time of Ryan’s death forward almost 4 years or so from reality and the movie insinuates (via the “I just went to see him in the hospital before I left, fucker can’t see poo poo.”) that he hadn’t yet made it past therapy and reconstructive surgery. PTSD: Book version: No mention of “PTSD”, “Post Traumatic Stress Disorder”, or any description of the effects as they pertain to Chris Kyle or anyone he aided is present in the book. There are only two things that could be read into that could give you some sense of Kyle suffering from PTSD: He mentions in one section that he started drinking heavily right after formally leaving the Navy. This leads to a car crash where he was miraculously not injured. He then straightens up and gets better. No mention of what he does to do this. The second thing is that Kyle apparently had a habit of taking a week to himself when he came back from tours. He said this was to help him reintegrate to the civilian world. Not necessarily a sign of PTSD by itself though. Movie Version: This is similar to Mustafa and the Butcher in that it is all over the place. After almost every kill Kyle is shown to have some level or trauma or pause in his thoughts as he tries to gather himself. The civilian scenes are also all about his PTSD after about the 50 minute mark. The scenes that point toward his suffering from PTSD are: In the prenatal check up (00:55:06), after his son’s birth when he sees Taya had watched the enemy sniper tapes he has (00:57:06), when he meets his brother on his way back to Iraq (and his brother is just leaving) his brother is clearly supposed to be showing PTSD signs (00:58:25), At the car garage when a fellow soldier comes up to Kyle to thank him for saving his life and then after at the hospital when his newborn daughter is crying and the nurse is “ignoring” her (01:13:16), Driving home from Marc Lee’s funeral (01:29:34), When he returns to the states for the last time and sits in a bar without having told his family that he was even home (01:52:50), when he is sitting at home watching a blank TV hearing war sounds (01:55:03), and then when he attacks a dog playing with his son at a birthday party (01:56:07). After that and for the rest of the movie the only topic is Kyle’s PTSD and his attempts to get better while helping fellow veterans. The Name of Kyle’s Platoon: I mentioned this earlier, about the portrayal of the Military and Kyle’s Platoon’s name. The platoon calls themselves “The Punishers”. This is explicitly stated in the book to be a reference to Frank Castle, the Marvel Comics anti-hero. The platoon uses the name “The Punishers” and uses the signature skull logo on their equipment and vehicles. In the book Kyle mentions at various times that they use the name in the exact same manner: They are punishing the wicked, evil, savage Iraqi’s. The movie however makes no overt mention of this and only once is the name of the platoon even mentioned by Kyle (01:34:18 during the scene he learns about Ryan Job’s death). However it is still heavily present in the background. You can see the punisher logo on their vehicles (on the armor in front of the mounted machine guns) and at 00:29:40 you can see Kyle’s platoon mate reading a Punisher comic book when he returns from his first kill. It’s never specifically made clear that this is why the punisher logo is present in the film. My Interpretation So what is going on here? If you’ve read the book or were familiar with whom Chris Kyle was before the movie was announced/around the time of the book’s publication then you already know that this man was an unrepentant jingoist. He can be quoted as saying that “They all deserved to die” in regards to everyone he had killed during his tours of duty. He was proud of his service, he wished he could have killed more (his words) since he felt that each Iraqi killed saved an American life, and he, at least professed, that he had no qualms about his role in the Iraq War. Kyle almost goes out of his way in his book to explain how little it affected him to kill Iraqi’s. At best the only thing he worried about was making sure the ROEs (Rules of Engagement) were in order so he didn’t get called up by lawyers telling him to explain his kills. In his book he spends far more time talking about the myriad of physical injuries he suffered from (messed up knees, getting shot twice, chronic fatigue, etc.) throughout his service than any potential mental wounds he suffered from. But the movie spends a lot of time trying to make the case for an entirely different Chris Kyle. The movie puts forward a man who fought for his country and suffered deeply for it. The movie removes a lot of his jingoistic language, they add in scenes of extreme distress and trauma to his kills, and they spend half of the movie pushing forward an aspect of Chris Kyle’s life that is entirely absent from his own autobiography. Now the film does have one advantage over Kyle himself and that is because they are able to view his story from a post mortem window. Maybe Kyle did suffer from PTSD himself. It didn’t make much news. He certainly worked with veterans who suffered from it and maybe his chest puffing was all a means to try and convince himself that he wasn’t affected by his service in Iraq. But aside from that possibility the things that were removed and the things that were added and changed between Kyle’s book and Eastwood’s film clearly point towards a rewritten history. Looking at the opening scene and the RPG scene specifically the disconnect between what the book says and what the movie shows are entirely different and completely contradictory. The books version of the opening scene has just a woman attempt to attack the Marines while the movie adds in a child that is used to attack them before being killed. But in the Book version of the RPG scene we have an almost mirrored situation: A child is being used in a combat role and Kyle would have been “cleared” to kill him but he specifically says “I wasn’t going to kill a kid, innocent or not”. Now is the situation different? Yes. In the movies opening there is clear and present danger from the kid attacking the Marines. However that situation never happened. As far as we can know Kyle would not shoot a kid. We also know from his own recollection that he would not have a reaction like the movie shows to shooting one if he did. He viewed any combatants as evil savages that needed to be killed. With either interpretation we get a completely different person from the one the movie is feeding us. Additionally when it comes to Marc’s funeral we get the opposite problem. In the book Kyle has nothing but good things to say about Marc and his letter. Kyle calls the letter “incredible” and “an extremely positive [letter]”. Why would you change this to “that letter killed Marc”? If you’re trying to make Kyle more likeable or at least more sympathetic why change what is arguably one of the most positive parts of his book to an almost venomous attack on a fellow SEAL’s character? And add into that killing off Ryan Job in a completely invented manner and removing a majorly positive story for post war veterans. If you’re really trying to make a movie that focuses on PTSD and the role that war plays in damaging soldiers (Which I think is what this movie wants you to think it’s doing) why delete a real life story that would have made a hugely positive addition to the end of the film? Add in a story about how this man survived and thrived after the war. But no, it’s rewritten to give Movie Kyle the motivation to “FINISH THE FIGHT!”. And then there is the Mustafa/The Butcher story arc. This is invented whole cloth. Kyle barely mentions the concept of an Olympic Sniper going by the name “Mustafa” in his book. At best the historical record is that this “person” was just a name to give credit to for any US casualty for propaganda purposes. But I think the point of these characters was as a focal point for Kyle’s jingoistic hatred of Iraqis. The film makers found a way to take all of Kyle’s bragging about killing Iraqis and severe hatred of Iraqis and make it “Ok”. Instead of letting Kyle spout this crap about a random, amorphous group of (brown) people they refocused those feelings onto two OBJECTIVELY evil men. The filmmakers go overboard on making these guys evil. They have their character of The Butcher kill a kid with a drill; they have the sniper Mustafa kill for money (hinted at when we see him with Kyle’s bounty poster). These guys are so comically evil they should have had long, thin moustaches that they are constantly twirling. This is purely to make give a smokescreen to Kyle’s nigh racist hatred of Iraqis. So here is what I think is really happening. I think that this movie is trying to whitewash Chris Kyle in the same way little kids try to get out of trouble. This is a movie that is taking a man who literally thought of himself as a Marvel Superhero (Super Anti-Hero?) bringing justice to an evil land. In his book Kyle spends more time talking about how he saw himself as justified, and almost with a God given right, to kill Iraqis during his tours of duty. So what does this movie do? Well Kyle got hurt too… Sound familiar? As a kid, were you ever in a situation where you got hurt by some other kid (or did hurt some other kid) either by accident or on purpose and the person who did the hurting quickly go: “Oh my foot/hand/head/etc. is really hurt (after hitting that other kid) waaah, we’re both in pain”? That’s what I think is happening with this movie. It’s trying to excuse who Kyle was by painting him as a broken man. I also think it’s trying to rewrap the Iraq war in a way that the current American public will accept it. In a sense it’s trying to say that “both sides were hurt” and even with the “good” that was done all these poor soldiers are damaged and let’s just focus on helping them and forget about how bad of an idea this farce of a conflict was. If Chris “The Punisher” Kyle, self-professed (and historically verified) super soldier can be broken by this war then what we really need to do is just ignore the circumstances of the war and just focus on helping veterans. Crain fucked around with this message at 03:39 on Jan 21, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2015 03:33
|
|
|
Charlz Guybon posted:
I took that into consideration. The movie has an advantage over Chris Kyle himself because they can view his life from a post mortem point of view. But even if she is the source for the PTSD angle, the other changes to Kyles behavior between the book and the movie point to some major whitewashing.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2015 03:56
|
|
|
Narciss posted:Hoooly poo poo I cannot believe the haterade being spilled all over the laps of the people in this thread. How about you all put down the knife and stop making those peanut butter & jealous sandwiches; Chris Kyle is an American hero, and war does not make for fluffy & nice stories. 0/10 Please see me after class.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2015 03:59
|
|
|
Abu Dave posted:Well, in the book piece it says he wouldn't shoot a child ever, and in the movie he shoots one and almost 2 so it's a wash I get. In the book he's saying that in a "warriors code" sense. Also the movie invented the situation where he shoots a kid. Go and read my synopsis of what changes the movie makes. Also I couldn't include all the times he goes "I had no issue killing that [savage/evil man/haji/some other racist name for Iraqi]". The movie has him showing way more emotion and pause about his kills. In book he basically says he was roleplaying The Punisher. Young Freud posted:Crain, you mention that you interpret that Eastwood/filmmakers toned down the jingoism and excised the more questionable stories from the book. This is reminding me a lot of the story with Lone Survivor, where Peter Berg tried to rein in the source material's exaggeration of Operation Red Wings done by the SEAL author. Yeah, that's not off base. Like High Warlord Zog says there were others guiding these books besides their respective subjects. Here is the "About the Authors" page. quote:SEAL TEAM 3 CHIEF CHRIS KYLE served four combat tours in Operation Iraqi Freedom and elsewhere. For his bravery in battle, he was awarded two Silver Stars, On another topic: If people are going to try and say that Taya Kyle (Chris Kyle's Wife) "set the record" straight for the film makers in light of his death and/or hitherto unknown (or at least unpublicized) PTSD then keep in mind that she has her own sections in his book. She never mentions any of this. In fact many of the stories she does share continue to paint Kyle as the rabidly jingoistic, right wing, militaristic, caricature we think he is. Not trying to call anyone out, Charlz Guybon's post just made me think to double check those sections. For example: quote:The first time Chris came home, he was really disgusted with everything. With America, especially. However the following lines do show some behavior that could point to PTSD: quote:But the adjustment to being home was hard. He’d wake up punching. He’d always been jumpy, but now, when I got up in the middle of the night, However, and I'm ashamed to say I missed this actually, the next Taya section recounts the car service scene but with no mention of Chris suffering from PTSD or getting focused on the impact wrench: quote:Not always in a bad way: one day, Chris was getting his oil changed at a local shop. Some men were in the lobby with him. The guy behind the I'm going to reiterate something from previously: Why bother rewriting another scene to purely fictional when there is a perfectly good, and true, situation where the POV you're trying to push is present? They could have kept the bedroom scene of Kyle being freaked out by his wife coming back to bed, but instead chose to fabricate an aspect of a different story to push the PTSD angle. You can try to blame it on Kyle not approving Taya of talking about anything PTSD related, but then why let her put the story about him jolting awake when she came back to bed in? Also that section, Kyle being jumpy after his first deployment, is the last time we hear about that kind of behavior or any PTSD related behavior from Taya either. Rant pt.2 over. Crain fucked around with this message at 02:55 on Jan 22, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2015 02:28
|
|
|
Abu Dave posted:Is there anything in regards to the mechanics scene in the book? That part in the movie in my eyes was trying to paint the other marine as some pansy while Kyle was too cool for school I literally just posted it. Go to my last post. Here it is, the book's version, again: quote:
Plays out mostly the same, but without any of the PTSD.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2015 03:10
|
|
|
Abu Dave posted:Oh, my bad. I see now where the movie tries to dramatize some things. I wish the original script would leak so we could see what changes went through between Spielberg and Eastwood. I have a feeling the whole first half with the cheating gf and such would've been nonexistent. That whole part screamed misogyny and pointlessness. Hilariously there's a scene in the book where it's Kyle that's close to cheating on Taya, and the scene of him getting cheated on by an early girlfriend doesn't exist or at least isn't in the book. More changes.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2015 03:25
|
|
|
Lonos Oboe posted:I heard that Spielberg was originally attached to direct and wanted to include a LOT more about the enemy sniper. Imagine a movie that showed how both of these guys inflicted horrible casualties onto their respective enemy sides, all in the name of jingoism, 'honour', religion and 'protecting' their family. It could have been great to show that these guys were two sides of the same coin. Their training, home life and inevitable showdown of 2 men who probably shared a similar philosophy. Dang man, thats a movie I wanna see. I'd love to see what Spielberg's vision for this movie was. But at the same time I doubt that he'd be pushing a full on "Enemy at the Gates" reboot in the modern day. Mostly because the Mustafa idea is a complete fabrication, Kyle himself never even tried to push that he had some career spanning rivalry with an enemy sniper. I mean, considering what he did boast about, it would have been totally up his alley but even Chris "The Punisher" Kyle didn't try and push that narrative. It's interesting. In a vacuum I was imagining that this movie was toned down heavily to appeal to the modern view of the Iraq War. The book's message was 100% inline with the immediately post 9/11 view that we had to take the fight to the evil terrorists and was 100% inline with the GOP party line. So I was imagining that it was toned down to get broader appeal. But seeing others reactions it seems that it didn't even get to that point. Even people that fall for the "PTSD broke a humble hero" story line still hate the depiction of the Iraq War it's pushing. So who is this movie supposed to be for? It's not quite Right-wing enough for conservatives and it's still too Right-wing for Liberals. I'm honestly surprised it got nominated for any Oscars. Crain fucked around with this message at 17:21 on Jan 22, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2015 17:16
|
|
|
Charlz Guybon posted:I think the rise of ISIS from the ashes of AQI and their success in taking over much of northern Iraq and eastern Syria has made a pro-Iraq War movie much more palatable to the general public. Some how I completely failed to take that into account. Even though I knew about ISIS I still kinda thought we were done with this poo poo...
|
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2015 15:43
|
|
|
Lonos Oboe posted:Yeah, my first thought too was Enemy At The Gates. But even that film had to pull a last minute trick of having Ed Harris killing the kid who supplied him information because otherwise he probably would have been too relatable considering his acts were no worse than the hero's. He had no real reason for murdering the child other than the fact he was a nazi. Besides that he was a great character. That's the funny thing about the whole "Punisher" aspect. In the book it's pretty clear that at best these guys have only seen the movie or were just "reading a book by it's cover". There isn't any sense of irony with the platoon using the symbol or anything it's just straight up "HE PUNISH, WE PUNISH, BROWN MAN BAD NOW DIE!". Also, keep in mind that the real Chris Kyle, as far as his own book and words goes, also hasn't killed a kid. The opening scene in the movie was altered from the books account to include a child. And later on in the scene with the RPG, the version Kyle recounts has the kid being a gun runner for insurgents (and Kyle knowing this) and he states that he's "not going to kill a child, innocent or not". So there may be a much greater level of roleplaying going on there (i.e:adopting the concept of a "warriors code" that he follows no matter what).
|
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2015 16:31
|
|
|
Not sure if you mean to be implying this but that's how I'm reading it: Chis isn't the one reading the comic in the movie, it's another SEAL.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2015 18:41
|
|
|
Lonos Oboe posted:There are about 3 instances of the Punisher skull (And it is the Punisher skull) On the MG op's shield on the Hum vee, Chris's BDU and most weirdly in my opinion on his magazines. There is also a 1 single mention of "Punisher" as the name of the unit. In the scene right being told that Ryan "Biggles" Job died Bradly Cooper's Kyle says "Are there any other 'Punishers' around?". As far as I've been able to find that's the only time the unit is explicitly called by their Unofficial/Official nickname. quote:The ultimate role model for the modern soldier. I choose to see it as how Chris saw himself Agreed. All the language Kyle uses in his book could easily be Punisher dialogue. Or at least it could be if the writers could get away wish being so eye-rollingly over the top.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2015 01:51
|
|
|
Zwabu posted:
Another aspect of this from the book: Units specifically put in requests for snipers during combat. The way Kyle explains it in the book (so, maybe take some salt first) it works like a temp agency almost. The SF groups all have their specialized members up to be borrowed if you need them. So a unit doing some building clearing or erecting some base or post would call up the SEALs and specifically ask for a sniper to cover them for however long. So he's not just shirking his general duty with people he might know and can swap with, it's worse. These are units with no snipers who specifically called for one because they needed a SNIPER not just another dude to pad numbers. Now your sniper's loving around on the ground and the soonest you could get another if poo poo goes down is probably a day or so if the rest are busy, and at best a few hours if there's another free. Now that scene in the book is less knee-jerky in the sense that for a few days he noticed that the marines he was overwatching were doing pretty bad at house clearing so he decides to ask the commander to let him help out to train them. But it's still a bad idea to give up your specialized position to do training IN AN ACTIVE WAR ZONE DURING ACTIVE COMBAT!
|
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2015 04:26
|
|
|
Fargin Icehole posted:The movie was ok, and I think the first couple of Punisher MAXes was cool. That part with the kid didn't happen that way. Kyle's version in his book only has the woman running at them with a grenade and there was no dude on a roof calling in poo poo either. Do yourself a favor and read the book. quote:
This is like asking if we've stopped punching our wives yet. Kyle was a virulent racist, a pathological liar, and a great example of why the military worship in the country is so damaging to our society. But yeah, he was a good shot and there are situations where he saved some people. But we shouldn't have been there in the first place. The man wasn't even trying to say "We shouldn't be here, but it's a hosed up situation and I'll just do my damnedest to protect our boys". He was practically giddy about killing Iraqis, and he said he sometimes felt that "Sometimes it seemed like God was holding them back until I got on the gun.", as if he has some divine right to kill. So yeah, he probably saved people. But that doesn't balance the scales.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2015 18:34
|
|
|
SirDrinksAlot posted:I really don't understand all the hate for this movie. Here's my write up: http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3695714&userid=118872#post440509952 Also read the damned book. The biggest complaint here is that the movie is whitewashing a horrible person.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2015 19:14
|
|
|
SirDrinksAlot posted:
No? I have a problem with who he was as a person, I have a problem with the direction the movie goes in, I have a problem with the whitewashing being done on Kyle by the movie which is influencing public opinion on the topic of the Iraq war and Iraqis/Muslims leading to things like this:  . I don't hate the man because I don't know the man. But I have a problem with what the movie is trying to do when it comes to rewriting who he was. What's the point of trying to shut down criticism by trying to sweep it away by just calling it hate. There's been a lot of quality discussion posted with sourced quotes from the man himself and the movie and you just jumped in and ignored all of that. Why bother coming in here and just going "Well I didn't have a problem with it, why are you all haters?". So thanks for posting nothing of value I guess.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2015 19:39
|
|
|
SirDrinksAlot posted:
That defense barely covers for the fact that he saw his killing of Iraqis as a God given mission to remove evil from the world. That defense completely fails to cover the fact that: - He stole money from veterans (He said he would write the book and donate 100% of the proceeds. He only donated $52k, 1.7% based on some out of date earnings from the book). - He habitually lied about his own life. He actually managed to lose a defamation lawsuit in the USA. Do you know how goddamned hard it is to actually lose a defamation/libel suit in the US? He claimed he beat up Jesse Ventura. They had never even met outside of the courtroom. - He was horrifically racist back home as well. He claimed he set up shop on top of the Superdome in New Orleans and sniped out [black] looters who were attacking the city. He said he managed to kill 30. - He claimed he got away with vigilante justice when he killed 2 "car jackers" and called up the Pentagon who then told the cops who showed up to just let him leave. Absolutely 0 verification from anyone who isn't Kyle on that one. At best you could claim that Kyle was a victim of circumstance in Iraq, up until he comes home and confirms his character with the lies he's told since leaving the service. The movie is painting him as a noble hero to look up to who was broken by his service for his country and paid the ultimate price while humbly serving it's veterans as a civilian. And as another person said here, all that does is indirectly legitimize the terrible things he said and did. SirDrinksAlot posted:
We're talking about the movie, book, and the person Chris Kyle was here. If you want to talk about the current Middle East situation go to D&D. Also people are actually capable of being concerned about multiple things at any given time. We're not pushing "the economy is bad" and "Drone Strikes are bad" out of our minds just because we're talking about this movie right now. Also "people thinking 9/11 and Iraq is linked " is a pretty big deal because that was the original lie that forced us into the Iraq war and now there is a major motion picture that is informing people's opinions about the Iraq war which is saying it wasn't a lie. It's revisionist history. That's a problem. Crain fucked around with this message at 20:54 on Jan 24, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2015 20:50
|
|
|
SirDrinksAlot posted:
For the average private person who no one knows about those things are lovely but, yeah, they wouldn't rate very high. But this is a very public figure whose life has just been thrust fully into the public consciousness under false pretenses that make major revisions to his own history and the history of this country from the last 14-15 years. It's a significant issue. But you've made it quite clear you're just going to sit in "I'm just not that invested" box. So again, thanks for not really making any points beyond telling us you don't really care. Combed Thunderclap posted:Dude we get your perspective already there's just not really a lot to your perspective to respond to at this point. This. I'm not trying to just disregard you because you're not agreeing. Please understand that. It's just that you're not making any points of your own, asking us to reexplain things we've already posted earlier in the thread, then saying that you don't really care. Crain fucked around with this message at 22:39 on Jan 24, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2015 22:33
|
|
|
ReV VAdAUL posted:Arab Americans and American Muslims are reporting a surge in death threats: http://www.theguardian.com/film/2015/jan/24/american-sniper-anti-muslim-threats-skyrocket Remember: The Mujahideen were very popular, back when they were fighting off the Russians. They were freedom fighters. They were very popular in the south as well where this parallel was made. But then we figured we'd be free to just move on in since we helped them and we didn't realize that they don't want anyone around and were setting up a totally different system of rule from what we had in mind. So the necessary adjustments were made and they were rebranded as evil. Also don't forget that before 9/11 Middle Easterners were one of the "good one" groups of minorities where the GOP was concerned because they were very conservative. The last 15 years has completely flipped social perception of Middle Easterners and Muslims in the first world.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2015 23:26
|
|
|
Maybe John Wayne Gacy was just a tragic patron of the arts who lost his fight against schizophrenia and psychopathy. A truly tragic tale.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2015 00:40
|
|
|
Well for one: my aunt named her cat Rhett Butler. Counter point: that cat is chill as gently caress.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2015 02:59
|
|
|
Slugworth posted:Having more kills than a Vietnam era sniper isn't particularly surprising. Snipers in Vietnam were exactly what we all think of when we hear the word. The role of the sniper in Iraq was a huge shift from tradition, with most shots being made from relatively short distance and with the sniper moving at the same pace, sometimes faster, than the infantry. Another large change was that Snipers started being put into the area of operations before any other troops to set up and cover them during the initial contact with the enemy. They also stopped using them as simply specialized weapons reserved for high value targets, and instead used them as crowd control almost.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 26, 2015 19:14
|
|
|
teagone posted:Man, you guys sure do hate this movie, lol. This is my favorite completely useless statement, followed by "I don't really care that much" and "it's just a movie".
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2015 01:39
|
|
|
myshl0ng posted:*same movie but brown guy killing whites* 2/10: Basics of trolling understood but misapplied. Please consider remedial training in FYAD or 4chan before continuing.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2015 18:21
|
|
|
Eb posted:Yeah basically people realize they can't call it a bad movie just because they don't agree with its politics so they make up some other reasons. For instance it pretty obviously never "dragged on", if anything it blew through scenes too quickly. Considering that I had a problem with the politics of the actual events in which the movie in set and seeks to promote, hell yeah I can have a problem with it's politics. Especially when the filmmakers alter actual events and peoples own words to make them more likable since the reality of the situation isn't palatable to the general public anymore. Anyway, trolls aside, here's some discussion fuel that I found funny: So if any of you guys follow the D&D Polititoons thread you saw this Horsey comic posted the other day: http://editorialcartoonists.com/cartoon/display.cfm?cartoonist=HorseD Kind of a low content comment on both sides of the political spectrum wanting to know if they should like it before seeing it. Well funnily enough Eastwood himself just put out his thoughts on what his movie is saying and: Link Eastwood posted:In the wake of antiwar criticism from the left and pro-war praise from right about his film American Sniper, director Clint Eastwood told those gathered at Saturday’s Producers Guild Award Nominees Breakfast that his film makes “the biggest antiwar statement any film can.” So I was somewhat right in that the movie tries to distract from the idea of "War itself is bad" by trying to focus the audience on "The bad part of war is that is harms our soldiers". He didn't mention anything else about the movie that people are commenting on , like the portrayal of Iraqis or it's portrayal the war itself. But as far as Eastwood himself is concerned the movie is Anti-War because it shows that war harms our soldiers and their families.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2015 18:37
|
|
|
Sinnlos posted:Most of American Sniper's action bits look like they are from a video game, not a movie. The sandstorm is reminiscent of Spec Ops: The Line, while the drone scene feels like Call of Duty. In fact, a good chunk of the film could easily take place in a Call of Duty game. The severe lack of 360noscopes is the real crime in all of this. Crain fucked around with this message at 19:13 on Jan 27, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2015 19:05
|
|
|
Fangz posted:Enemy at the Gates, for all its faults, works a lot harder to humanize its Nazis (in particular the Ed Harris character), sets up tension by showing Zaitsev to be clearly inferior in terms of raw sniping talent to his nemesis (note that Major Konig is the one who makes the 'impossible' shots in that film. Zaitsev wins only because he had people willing to die for him, not because he outshoots the bad guy), muddies the water by showing the propaganda side of war and allows the Soviets to do lots of bad, wrong things. I forget: Does "Enemy at the Gates" have a scene where it shows Russian machine gunners shooting their own troops if they tried to turn back? Or am I confusing another movie.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2015 19:36
|
|
|
Ralepozozaxe posted:
My favorite part is when he tries to use his thumb all sneaky like to make it seem like the baby is real.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2015 20:03
|
|
|
So to continue on the "People talking about this poo poo in the news" kick, it seems that Noam Chomsky talked about American Sniper in a recent event in Cambridge. Linkquote:Noam Chomsky discussed the film “American Sniper” at an event held by the Baffler, last week in Cambridge, Mass. The noted linguist, philosopher and political commentator discussed the film, and drew comparisons with the mentality of Chris Kyle (the American sniper whose memoirs are the basis of the film), that of drone operators, and the American public for ignoring the drone war. It's interesting that he's taking the stance that snipers and drone operators share a similar perspective in the war zone. It makes sense since they are, at least traditionally, separated from the people they kill. Although Drone operators to a much greater degree. An idea comes to mind though: What if the choice of Chris Kyle as the "face" of the Iraq War is a deliberate choice (propaganda wise) to keep the war itself at arms length when examining it in the context of what's happening on the ground? If you're going to look at the Iraq War from a detached point of view it makes it easier to excuse things. Now with drones you get the "collateral damage" excuse. "These bad guys are hiding in schools and homes and we can't hit them any other way" is what you hear when asked why civilians are being killed. So the thought process moves along to ground troops who can differentiate between "good" and "bad" guys. But the problem with looking at the war there is that you get too close. Now you have civilians who, well, "can't handle" the reality of the situation looking at all this up close violence and still seeing the wrong people getting killed because gun fights are hectic sometimes you really do just kill the wrong person (I mean look at how many cops shoots completely unarmed people in this country every month under exactly none of the same stresses). So take another step back and you just look at the War through a snipers POV. You get the precision you had hoped to showcase with ground troops and the protection you want to show off with drone strikes. You just have that many more options to frame the narrative of the war. Now instead of, let's say, people asking "Why did Pat Tillman get shot in the back of the head by his own men!?" you have people asking "Why did Chris Kyle have to suffer from PTSD then die on home soil!?". It's an easier question to deal with. I think it's deliberate propaganda. This just feeds more into my previous effort post btw. This whole movie is propaganda even if Eastwood says it's "anti-war".
|
|
#
¿
Jan 28, 2015 02:10
|
|
|
teagone posted:Thanks! I'm actually going to remove that since the whole derail is just detracting from a movie I really want to discuss in depth along with it's source material.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 28, 2015 02:14
|
|
|
teagone posted:Nice ninja edit. Also Clint is a republican, conservative, and full of poo poo apparently. Why would anyone believe a guy who talks to chairs? (The previous post wasn't ninja edited, I was literally saying that I'm removing the "thanks for still not contributing" line from the previous post. So can we please stop this now?) thehomemaster posted:Two misunderstood movies, two Rorschach tests (not too many spoilers here) What a terrible review: quote:It also, by understanding and then dissecting the attractions of blood lust, becomes a quite convincing anti-war movie, if you doubt this spend a few months studying The Iliad. (By the way, Clint Eastwood, the director and producer, describes the movie as anti-war.) The murder scenes create an almost unbearable tension, the sandstorm is a metaphor for our collective fog, and they had the stones to opt for the emotional overkill of four rather than just three tours of duty. The reviewer clearly wants to take a literary view of the movie but doesn't even do any cursory research into what is and isn't an actual fact from life. Kyle actually served 4 tours, that's not a literary choice. Choosing to shorten his service to 2-3 tours would be a literary choice.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 28, 2015 02:19
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:It seems crazy that there's like a handful of movies explicitly about drone warfare and one of them is loving Robocop. Holy poo poo. We were warned.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 28, 2015 02:24
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:2014, to be clear. Oh, lame.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 28, 2015 02:27
|
|
|
meristem posted:I sincerely don't think this was that complicated. Dude wrote a book, that was popular, was already hailed as a hero. I meant specifically relating snipers to Drone operators, there is some similarity but the difference in distance is so much more. quote:And I think it all boils down to individual disposition, anyway. Sure, distance is dehumanising. But if you are a psychopath, you can get equally hot and bothered by the idea of looking that guy in the face as he dies as by the idea of he won't even know what got him. Equally, you can excuse collateral damage or be bothered by it precisely because it's so... collateral. I'd rather watch that. At least AG Benson realized that maybe he was doing something wrong or was being used to do something wrong.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 28, 2015 17:23
|
|
|
IMB posted:The hot new theory now is that the guy who killed Kyle was a secret Muslim. Are you serious?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 3, 2015 06:43
|
|
|
IMB posted:Well, only kinda. Its from an Allen West (you know the black dude who agrees with all the racist white guys so they can claim to have a black friend) article. Got a link? I actually shouldn't be that surprised. With how often Freep level conservatives scream about "Taqyyia" I'm sure they assume everyone else is a secret Muslim.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 3, 2015 06:50
|
|
|
Holy poo poo, what a terrible article. quote:While there is no proof of any conversion, Shoebat says “During a phone call with his father, Routh expressed sympathy for the detainees and discontent over how the US was conducting the war as well as his reluctance to engage in combat” and “While working as a guard at Balad Air Base, Routh laments his [Muslim] prisoners’ poor living conditions.” There's no proof of him having any conversations with prisoners, nor of converting to Islam, but HE HAD A BEARD. loving hell that is some insane mental gymnastics. The image they use of him show him with regular trimmed facial hair, and then they link to a "Understanding Islam" site that says you can't trim it at all. Probably shouldn't have read that before bed.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 3, 2015 07:07
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 17:51 |
|
|
astupiddvdcase posted:So apparently the guy who killed kyle was an 'islamic sympathiser' and he saw no combat experience. He isnt muslim but just cause he wasnt muslim doesnt mean everything said about chris and this movie still does not stand Wait what? I'm having a hard time parsing your second sentence.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 5, 2015 04:45
|
|