|
Snowman_McK posted:Wow, we, as a culture are black belts at missing the point. Its amazing to see it in action, I deal with it when I discuss this stuff with my sister. She constantly throws out lines like "well don't attack us(I suppose she's referencing 9/11 there....maybe) or you'll get whats coming to you", but when I respond by telling her about all the times in the past 75 years that we've hosed over the Middle East she doesn't really absorb any of it. These people over there are just inanimate engines of hatred in her mind, she absolutely doesn't see them as real human beings.
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2015 15:38
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 21:41 |
|
|
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. I'd have to see it again to be sure but wasn't Harris' character trying to force Vasilley's hand and induce a mistake? He knew that Vasilley had a relationship with the kid and would lose his cool if he was killed, he was trying to use that to his advantage. I mean its still a Nazi kinda thing to do but there was at least a motivation beyond just being an rear end in a top hat.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2015 16:11
|
|
|
Holy poo poo watching "news" segments about this movie on CNN(not even Fox News!) is unbelievably aggravating. They're lining up veterans and grandstanding politicians to talk about how amazing the movie is and what a True American Hero Kyle was. The host throws them some softball questions so they can shoot down any criticisms with ease. Host: "One thing I wonder about, why the need to embellish the story, to add too it? I've been hearing that some of the stuff here, for instance with the enemy sniper, didn't happen the way its portrayed in the movie." Guest: "Well I don't know about those details, but I've heard that this portrayal we have here is very, very accurate. And what I do know is that this man was a true hero, someone for all Americans to look up to and model themselves after." *Host nods sagely* I paraphrased a little just because I couldn't remember exact phrasing but this exchange happened on loving CNN. Basebf555 fucked around with this message at 17:04 on Jan 26, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jan 26, 2015 17:02
|
|
|
The problem with any issue like this, that is so politicized, is it is so taxing to get into any kind of discussion about it with other people in your life. Even if you are 100% secure in the relationship and that you won't ruin it forever with political bullshit, its still a herculean effort to get to a place of rational discussion. I'm also starting to slowly realize that I'm a pacifist, and that realization isn't all that shocking to me, what is shocking is how bizarre and out of place that ideology is perceived by others in this country.I've lived in the U.S. my whole life, it really shouldn't be that surprising but for some reason it is. The idea that violence and killing is not acceptable under ANY circumstances is just not something most American's are willing to even consider. It goes along with the idea that some things, while arguably necessary, are not to be lauded or celebrated. No matter how many fellow soldiers a man may have saved by killing the enemy, those deaths should not be celebrated, we should feel regret that it was necessary. And that's of course going with the assumption that it WAS necessary. Its what a lot of veterans try to articulate when they get back, they say "I'm not a hero, I was just doing my job", but that always translates in my mind to "I was forced by circumstances to do poo poo I'd rather forget, so please don't hold me up as a hero, it just makes it worse." Edit: Whoops, sorry I got into my whole life story, I was just trying to make the point that this movie is making it even harder to discuss this kind of poo poo with people. Basebf555 fucked around with this message at 21:25 on Jan 26, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jan 26, 2015 21:16
|
|
|
Snowman_McK posted:I thnk it's a little odd that I've heard the word used so often as an insult. A lot of people perceive it as weakness. Their mind right away leaps to a Hollywood scenario where a Bad Guy is about to do a Bad Thing and you are the only one with the means and opportunity to stop them.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 26, 2015 23:20
|
|
|
Calling any movie simply "bad" and moving on is always lazy, its not an opinion that's useful for discussion in any way. But if a film's politics are so disgusting that it kills my ability to enjoy the story and the characters, I consider that a failing of the film.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2015 17:37
|
|
|
Grizzled Patriarch posted:If you want to watch a bunch of action scenes about snipers, go watch Enemy at the Gates. It's not really a great film or anything, but it has a better cast, better pacing, some actual attention paid to cinematography, etc. American Sniper basically ripped off 80% of that movie and stuck an American coat of paint on it anyway (including the smash-cut hunting flashback and using a child for shameless emotional leverage). Kind of weird how many people don't see an issue with American Sniper being treated like an action movie in the first place, but whatever. That's an amusing comparison because Enemy at the Gates was criticized at the time for taking plenty of liberties with what was the story of a real-life man in a very real battle that killed tens of thousands(maybe more). The main character is Russian, the enemies are Nazi's, the conflict took place more than 50 years before the film was made, and it was still criticized. American Sniper is trying to get away with the same poo poo but without the benefit of literal Nazi's and the passage of time the movie is infinitely more offensive.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2015 18:12
|
|
|
The propaganda Minister or whatever(Bob Hoskins) is a really important difference between Enemy at the Gates and American Sniper. The movie makes a very unsubtle point about wartime propaganda and hero worship of soldiers.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2015 20:00
|
|
|
Just a complete aside about Enemy at the Gates: It has Ron Perlman. So right there you know there's something to like in the movie, it can't possibly be all bad. I didn't even know who Perlman was when I first saw Enemy at the Gates, but something in the back of my mind was telling me "remember this man." Great death scene too. Its already been said but the cast of Enemy at the Gates blows American Sniper's out of the water. Ed Harris, Jude Law, Bob Hoskins, Ron Perlman, Joseph Fiennes(he's good when he's the fifth best actor in the cast), Rachel Weiz. Not many films can compete with that. Of course what makes this funny is Enemy at the Gates is still a mediocre, flawed, largely forgettable movie. It certainly was not considered for any Oscars.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2015 20:25
|
|
|
teagone posted:I'm actually reading the book the movie is based on now due to the wealth of information presented in this thread so I can better understand the hate. My opinion has been shaken so you know, so basically gently caress off with your equally useless statement is what I'm saying You posted a jerky one sentence response, it added exactly nothing to the discussion, and now you're popping in to say gently caress off to the person who pointed that out? Just making sure I have this right.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 28, 2015 01:30
|
|
|
teagone posted:Why are you playing the white knight? How was my response jerky? I was just pointing something out. I also mentioned that thanks to this thread I'm in the process of reading the book to get some better insight now, seeing as Mugrim and a few others have presented some stuff that made me think a bit more about the ramifications of revisionist history being told and exploiting others through the eyes of an apparent sociopath. Feel free to ignore that part though. The post was very jerky, that is self evident; pretending it was intended as anything other than a dig is just being dishonest. I mean it ended with "lol", I don't know what else to say about it. Good for you for being open minded enough to change your opinions, but you still felt the need to throw a gently caress off in there just to make yourself feel better. Just say you realize you may have been wrong and leave it at that.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 28, 2015 01:47
|
|
|
Where I come from gently caress off pretty much means gently caress off regardless of any smiley faces.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 28, 2015 01:54
|
|
|
teagone posted:
I'm extremely offended at how you called me the notorious slur "white knight", it will take some time to get over that.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 28, 2015 02:07
|
|
|
Making a movie about the invasion of Iraq without dealing with why it was done and how those decisions were made is an extremely boring creative choice. Even if Eastwood is being honest and he really intended the film as an anti-war statement he made the most obvious, trite statement there is to make. War is very rough on the soldiers and they often have a hard time adjusting to normal life after its over, wow what a revelation.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 28, 2015 15:19
|
|
|
You know that's a really good point. If Eastwood was really so concerned about showing the emotional/psychological damage suffered by these soldiers why not focus a lot more on the guy who killed Kyle? You know, the one who actually had the most severe PTSD of anyone in the story and ended up murdering someone back in the U.S. because of it?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 28, 2015 19:28
|
|
|
Its a false argument anyway. Just because something may not be quite as bad as literal Nazism doesn't mean it isn't horrible and disgusting. At least use the word fascist so that there can be a discussion without the unproductive levels of emotion that come along with any discussion of Hitler and Nazis.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 30, 2015 15:12
|
|
|
tbp posted:That was him justifying it to himself he didnt't actually believe it I mean, you're saying you don't care about the real life events so I think you're approaching this from a different place than most of us in the thread. This war wasn't 100 or even 50 years ago, a lot of us still give a poo poo that thousands of innocent people died for pretty much no reason.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 5, 2015 15:47
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:
Well I think that is the reason. I think they(Eastwood I guess, but I'm sure others were involved in these decisions) knew that if they focused too much on Kyle's inner thoughts and feelings it wouldn't go well regardless of which direction they decided to go with it. If it was brutally honest portrayal of his hosed up mind, it would piss people off and be criticized as taking a poo poo on the troops. If it was a white-washed version that leaves out any of the nasty stuff then the film would have been criticized for changing what's in the book for political/financial reasons. I don't think they realized that the inner workings of Kyle's head are what's interesting about his story and not giving that the attention it deserved totally cut the balls off the whole movie. I just watched The Master for the first time and its says a whole lot more about what war does to soldiers than American Sniper does.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 19, 2015 17:33
|
|
|
socketwrencher posted:If they went too deep into Kyle's mind, maybe he just becomes an outlier though, and not representative. Plus it might detract from what I believe to be the main intention behind the movie (besides making money), which is that we should appreciate and support out troops who are out there doing terrible things on our behalf (whether we want them to or not). I'm not really disagreeing with you, but man that is a hosed up message. Who appreciates when somebody goes out and does something terrible on their behalf, something that they didn't want in the first place? I'm somewhat of a pacifist though so the whole "sometimes war is necessary" thing doesn't really sit well with me. I sympathize with soldiers and admire some of the qualities they often have, but its very rare that I feel like I can support their actions.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 19, 2015 18:21
|
|
|
The Zizek quote describes a problem with many war movies, American Sniper included. Of course then on top of that you have the fact that it covers a war that most thinking people agree was, to put it nicely, unnecessary. To use Vietnam as an example, looking back there are films that took head-on the question of "why the gently caress are we even over here?", and those that avoided it. The ones we remember positively are the ones that didn't shy away from asking the most difficult, uncomfortable question. American Sniper presents Kyle as a Rambo(First Blood, not what he became later) type figure, but its the movie I guess First Blood would have been if the first scene where Rambo is walking in his hometown was the final scene instead of the opening one. It never has the balls to say "But what if we were there for absolutely nothing? What if our guys died for stupid reasons and now nobody really gives a poo poo about them?" Its much more comfortable to not ask or answer these questions, but if Stallone can do it I'm confident Eastwood could have.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 23, 2015 16:16
|
|
|
socketwrencher posted:
What exactly constitutes "caring about", or supporting the troops? From your posts in this thread that seems to be the #1 priority in your mind, that the film is supportive of our military personnel and that's the way it should be. I've always seen that phrase as a purposely vague catch-all used to shoot down criticism of the military whenever its convenient. Our servicemen are important and we should care about their welfare, but not at the expense of our own morality. There is plenty of blame to go around for the invasion of Iraq and all the lives lost there, I along with lots of other Americans failed to realize how wrong it was until it was too late. So the United States as a country needs to come to terms with that mistake, troops included. Making a film that takes place during the invasion and just pushing that issue off to the side to be dealt with at a later date is cowardly. I referred back to First Blood in my last post but this movie is like Rambo 3, when it could have easily been something along the lines of First Blood.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 23, 2015 21:14
|
|
|
meristem posted:
This is exactly what the Zizek quote from a few pages ago was getting at. Compare the complexity of Kyle's character with the Iraqi characters in the film. If the film is just about the horrors of war in a general sense, why aren't the Iraqi's given the same treatment as Kyle? That's a rhetorical question because the obvious answer is the movie isn't about the horrors of war in general. Its about the horrors that our boys experience but gently caress the enemy they're barely human anyway. When you make that film in 2015, while there is certainly a market for it, there will also be plenty of criticism. There are a lot of people in the United States that aren't looking to buy that line of bullshit anymore.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2015 15:30
|
|
|
socketwrencher posted:There seem to be a significant number of people who continued to support the war through the late 2000s and up to the present day. Their opinions are as valid, even if you consider them wrong, as the opinions of those who did not support the war. Their opinions are valid in the sense that every opinion is "valid". Doesn't stop me from forming my own opinion that those people are morons to be tuned out and ignored whenever possible. If you're sitting here today still able to look back at that war and claim that it was justified with a straight face, there is something wrong with you. I'm not denying that there are plenty of those people who are severely delusional though, and that's the problem with this movie. It gives idiots false justification for their stupid opinions and contributes to these beliefs still existing long after any thinking person should have changed them. It leads to us being hated around the world and resented even by our own allies.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2015 20:05
|
|
|
I have a question about the Fairness Doctrine. How did it effect hosts/anchors, i.e. the questions they ask, the tone they have when they discuss the issue, etc. For instance you could argue that Bill O'Reilly adheres to it when he has two people of opposing views on to discuss an issue, but then he kinda fucks all that up by asking stupid leading questions, treating those he disagrees with like dirt, and making his own viewpoints excessively clear. Would these kind of hosts be forced to be at least a little more subtle about it?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 25, 2015 17:12
|
|
|
Smoothrich posted:I dont think soldiers are saints, they are trained killers. Are soldiers supposed to feel guilt about killing? Well you're now getting into some real poo poo that would have made a great movie don't you think? Governments train soldiers to be killers, and to kill without thinking about it. The goal is for training to take over during combat so that soldiers won't break down psychologically, run away, panic, etc. Chris Kyle's story, as told in his book, is a perfect example of that training twisting a man up into something disgusting to the point that he's lost most of his humanity. The movie chose to tell that story in the most sanitized way possible, presumably because the more honest way wouldn't have been as marketable. Movie Kyle hasn't been turned into a monster as he was in real life, just a conflicted, damaged hero.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2015 15:21
|
|
|
Cole posted:No, we aren't. It's a huge portion of training that starts the day you head off to basic training/boot camp. I don't want to speak for anyone else but when someone says soldier's "should" feel guilt about killing, they are probably speaking more philosophically. In reality you're right of course, the training is designed to prevent guilt or doubt. For me that is a problem, and obviously not just an American problem. Its a very old problem though, and its not like there's any magical solution to it. As a pacifist I wish soldiers didn't exist at all but that's just a fantasy.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2015 15:35
|
|
|
Cole posted:We are arguing the accuracy of the movie, and killing being fun and exhilarating is accurate. We're definitely all over the place and not everyone is arguing about the same thing. My specific complaint is that the movie doesn't really show that Kyle's training turned him into someone that enjoyed killing people. Its a big part of what makes the book interesting/important, and its not evident in the movie because he's supposed to be the hero of the story. The Kyle displayed in his own book is not someone to be lauded as a hero. You're arguing the realism of the movie versus actual combat, while some people in the thread are arguing that the story told in Kyle's book is not the same one told in the film.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2015 17:03
|
|
|
Cole posted:I would say that's a very hard thing to put on film (probably impossible) and make it relatable to a large audience. That may be true, but not every film has to be relatable to a large audience. The point is that marketability and financial concerns took priority over actually telling the true story of who Kyle was. Cole posted:
Yea I can agree with that, the use of the 9/11 footage isn't a major issue for me.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2015 17:37
|
|
|
Cole posted:When you push $60m at a movie, you're almost stuck with a wide release, regardless of your initial screen testings, so it better be relatable to a larger audience than a passion piece like Birdman seemed to be. Why did they push $60m at this movie then when it should have been clear that Kyle is a not an appropriate hero and his story would have to be changed drastically to appeal to a wide audience? Nobody forced them to make this movie or to put that much money into it. These were decisions made by people who's #1 priority was financial gain. I'm not saying that's surprising, just sad and potentially harmful to young under-educated people.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2015 18:13
|
|
|
Cole posted:It isn't Hollywood's responsibility to educate anyone. Come on now, that's just ridiculous. The marketing of the film went extremely far out of its way to make sure everybody knew about the real Kyle. And I suppose we could get into what would amount to a semantics argument about what "responsibility" Hollywood has for the movies it produces. Regardless of that, films that have distasteful politics or portray history(even just one man's) inaccurately open themselves up to criticism, and that's what's happening with American Sniper. The list of films that have been criticized for attempting to whitewash or sanitize history is long, and that criticism is legitimate. If you personally don't care about that aspect of film, fine, but lots of others do.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2015 18:31
|
|
|
Cole posted:
What you're describing is what I WANTED to see in the movie! Movie Kyle feels conflicted about killing people and is only doing it because he has to protect his fellow soldiers. Real-life Kyle admits he just enjoys killing the enemy and was sad that he couldn't continue killing. That's the part that's being whitewashed and sanitized. And look, I get that you've served and therefore you have a perspective on this that I won't ever have. If that means you're not going to have this discussion with an open mind then lets end this now, stop throwing out sarcastic remarks that seem to suggest you're the only person with enough knowledge to speak on this topic. Also I've never heard the term "subject matter expert" where are you even getting that from?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2015 19:08
|
|
|
socketwrencher posted:If you show Kyle as a monster then he may be viewed as an outlier, a killer on a joyride that doesn't accurately reflect or represent our troops. It's a more powerful movie if despite his sniper skills he's still just one of the troops carrying out our foreign policy. For me that would have been worth the risk in order to have a chance at showing what our foreign policy and militaristic culture does to our troops. By shying away from the monstrousness of the real Kyle the film becomes a cop-out, the "war is dehumanizing" message has been done to death and is trite at this point. I want to see a film about how we as a country are creating monsters and setting them loose on our "enemies". This movie, considering who Kyle was and what he wrote in his book, had the opportunity to be that movie and it isn't, so that is very disappointing.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2015 19:38
|
|
|
Cole posted:But the movie was about one guy and his experiences with war and how he saw things, not about foreign policy. Again, you're asking for a completely different movie. Well you're correct, I'm asking for a completely different movie. I wish a very different movie was made using the Chris Kyle story. Comparing Bad Boys 2 to a bio-pic of a real-life soldier who died less than ten years ago and who fought in a real-life war that ended so recently is ridiculous.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2015 19:47
|
|
|
Cole posted:You need a movie like that, but it isn't Hollywood's responsibility to give it to you. I'm not really interested in what Hollywood is "responsible" for. Kyle's story was an opportunity to expose a systemic problem and instead it was used for a completely different purpose, and that's unfortunate. That opportunity was wasted, and I wish it hadn't been.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2015 20:08
|
|
|
Cole posted:A movie based on his story was made. Yes and I'm expressing dissatisfaction with the way it turned out. It could have been an important film with an important message. Instead its the same old poo poo.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2015 20:18
|
|
|
Cole posted:I'm sorry the studio didn't call you for your input? You know you're in a forum where people post opinions about movies right?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2015 20:22
|
|
|
Cole posted:Yeah but you're not getting it: what you wanted to happen doesn't mean dick. You're pissing against the wind every time you say "the movie should have been like this" when, in reality, movies should be made just how the person making them wants them to be made, plain and simple. So you've never had a criticism of any movie you've ever seen?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2015 20:29
|
|
|
Cole posted:So you don't agree that movies should be made the way the person making them wants them to be? Kind of robbing people of their creativity with that mindset. Absolutely, then when the movie is finished I get to watch it and form an opinion on it. Then I can share that opinion with others if I feel like it. This is a simple dynamic that has been working for as long as art has existed.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2015 20:32
|
|
|
Cole posted:Of course I have, but I haven't said that the director should have made a completely different movie because I didn't like the one he made. Making fun of technical stuff like bad lighting, poor acting, those are things that warrant criticism. But saying "this entire story should have been this story instead" is pretty stupid and quite literally undercuts any director who made a movie in the vision he wanted to. Filmmakers who make movies that deal with politically charged, very recent real-life events don't get to dismiss criticism by just saying "well that's not the movie I wanted to make." When you deal in actual, real history there is an expectation that something close to the truth will be presented. If that had been done in this case the movie would have been much different, and I think that's a legitimate criticism. Its not the same thing, for instance, as someone saying they wish Prometheus was just a straight-up sequel to Alien. The "history" of Alien is made up by Ridley Scott in his head, there's no objective truth to compare it to so he is the ultimate authority there.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2015 20:45
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 21:41 |
|
|
Cole posted:Were you one of the ones defending Hurt Locker? Because that is 1000x more inaccurate than American Sniper. Absolutely not, I'm aware of the inaccuracies of Hurt Locker and I do think it hurts the movie as a whole. The inaccuracies in Hurt Locker tend to be more on the tactical side of things, however, and not in how it presents the inner workings of the main characters mind. The main character in Hurt Locker is fictional. Still a missed opportunity though, as most war movies these days are. Basebf555 fucked around with this message at 20:58 on Mar 3, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2015 20:53
|
|