Post: #26

Clint Eastwood, the jingoistic director of such pro-war propaganda films like Flags of our Fathers and Letters from Iwo Jima.

Post: #27

I get what you're saying...but there is also a big difference between World War 2 and the Iraq War.

Post: #28

I didn't see anything politically unbalanced or terribly jingoistic with this film. The Iraq war was for bad reasons but this was about one man's journey through his service. He was shown making tough decisions with consequences in a war with questionable outcomes. Kyle definitely wasn't depicted as some kind of racist psychopath. Especially that one scene where he's literally trembling with horror and relief about not having to plug the kid with the rpg launcher.

Whether or not this was a good piece of film is another matter entirely. It's not Clint Eastwood's best but not his worst. Letters from Iwo Jima and Unforgiven are probably his best films. This is just OK.

Post: #29

The movie is pure propaganda.

But its importance lies in its success being the first signs of the coming cultural and political pendulum swing back towards conservatism, right on time halfway through Obama's second term. All those heartland folks who have been quiet the last 6 or 8 years are coming out of the woodwork.

Post: #30

This photo capture is an attempt at propaganda in itself and I'll explain why.

(01-22-2015 05:24 PM)Sourcecode Wrote:  You underestimate how ignorant so many people in this country are.
You open up the scene with him killing a muslim woman and child.. and its instant justifcation for people to do stuff like this

I decided to pay attention to the twitter respondents on the tag as it poured in to see what the majority sentiment and commentary was. Most people simply said it was good, the second largest sentiment unfortunately stated that it was the best movie ever made. Clearly this people know not of better cinematography. What seemed to be the third most stated opinion was that people left the theater quietly, as if awe struck. That's quite a statement, but can't be verified and I doubt that will actually translate to the public's behaviors being more insightful and responsible on contemplating issues around war. Nothing ever seems to do that.

Then there was this picture that was spread around by Rania Khalek, an Arabic and feminist reporter who's page states, "fuck objectivity, it's bullshit". I looked through all the 'microblogs' to guess and estimate of the total percentage of people making those kind of opinions.

I found small amount of people with this sentiment by search using the keywords to pinpoint them. Based on the overall size of twitter users, how many people it takes to 'trend' a tag, the amount of bigotry was minimal, a hand full in terms of numbers.

This is why I'm against seeing race or racism in everything. If you look at Rania Khalek's page you'll see her vitriol in plain view. She's a pretty bigoted person herself and toes the line on most typical feminists views. If you believe this picture is an accurate representation of the public, you're allowing a hateful purpose like Khalek to make the truth for you.

(01-22-2015 05:54 PM)VolandoVengoVolandoVoy Wrote:  I get what you're saying...but there is also a big difference between World War 2 and the Iraq War.

I don't like how the constant moral superiority of WW2 is flaunted by anti-war people on a regular basis and how it's permeates everything when discussing the Iraq war. I tend to see this as an obvious attack on the character of military people instead of the crony politicians when it's combined with questioning the character of a particular military persons. That's what your retort was, so I have to believe that this is your point and that's pretty uncalled for.

Would anyone guess that WW2 veterans have gave me the 'thank you for serving' talk before? They see the same thing that I know that the general public seems to miss.

Quote:Tillman gave up millions (and eventually his life) fighting in a conflict that he first supported and after careful thought came to disagree with...yet he fought for and with his men.

That's actually most military sentiment, but the military can't throw down arms because they disagree with something or let wars be fought where only people with bad motives are the participants.

-----------

Anyway, I thought it was good. It was one of the more accurate Iraq war movies to come out and gave a good idea of what that was like for Chris Kyle. Hurt locker was another good one, but it edged on ridiculous many times with him leaving the FOB casually, doing patrols practically by themselves, every dramatic scene you hear jet sounds over head.

I have a hard time believing that Kyle was some psychopath. People did the same to the "lone survivor" guy because his politics weren't self-loathing apologetic crap.

We'll be plagued by the same politics surrounding war that are similar to the kind that lost the Vietnam war when the public succumbed to propaganda while the Viet Cong were numerically and strategically defeated. After that, the Chinese reinforced them and they restructured, Just as AQ is making final push in both Iraq and Afghanistan now.

Al Qaeda=ISIS=Mahdi Army=Tamil Tigers=etc.

Only politicians make distinctions between groups of people that all want to accomplish the same thing; murder swathes of ideological enemies, tyrannically impose their religious dogma on an entire population and force conversion to their way of life or die.

Post: #31

(01-22-2015 06:07 PM)El Chinito loco Wrote:  I didn't see anything politically unbalanced or terribly jingoistic with this film. The Iraq war was for bad reasons but this was about one man's journey through his service. He was shown making tough decisions with consequences in a war with questionable outcomes. Kyle definitely wasn't depicted as some kind of racist psychopath. Especially that one scene where he's literally trembling with horror and relief about not having to plug the kid with the rpg launcher.

Whether or not this was a good piece of film is another matter entirely. It's not Clint Eastwood's best but not his worst. Letters from Iwo Jima and Unforgiven are probably his best films. This is just OK.

Well said.

I personally thought the movie was good. The book is supposed to be good as well, and that's important to remember. This was a true story, and while there may be some discrepancies in the account, the film was made to tell Chris Kyle's story to the world.

As for propaganda, who would be pushing this type of film? Certainly not the USG. If you can show me that this film was funded by Halliburton or some defense contractor, then you have a point. But I don't think Eastwood at age 84 really has a dog in this fight.

Post: #32

(01-22-2015 05:24 PM)Sourcecode Wrote:  You open up the scene with him killing a muslim woman and child.. and its instant justifcation for people to do stuff like this

Some perspective is needed here. It's clearly shown that a woman and child were planning to toss an IED right into a group of marines. This sort of thing actually happened in Iraq. Suicide bombers in the middle east regularly recruit naive kids to do shit like this. That's just the unfortunate and sick circumstances of war.

I'm going to assume most of you have seen Lone Survivor too. Do you remember when those SEALS let that goat farmer and his boy live? How many SEALS ended up dying from that.

In war sometimes a realistic perspective is needed. Even if a boy threatens your men or has the potential to kill many more people then you just have to do what is necessary. This is a rational and reasoned response. On the other hand My Lai in Vietnam or some obvious atrocities like that are obviously not. There are pretty logical right or wrong moral boundaries there.

Post: #33

(01-22-2015 05:24 PM)Sourcecode Wrote:  Lol...Wastelander...A war,arguably, about the most decorated sniper in american history?
going through his life and views.
And you say..its not political?
Bruh.. clearly you don;t know propaganda when it hits you

First of all the movie jumped around a lot.
The back story sucked.. and and the end explanation was worse.
purely from a cinematography standpoint... the movie was rushed and horrible made.
I think that they said the movie was already being made before he died..so they awkwardly wrapped the movie up.

As for the story...It was just another american war sob story propaganda thing.
Im not bring up Kyle..Im saying the movie was just a sob story.
The trend of these war movies is pretty played out... go for the emotions of the people to keep support high, while disguising a lot of the real problems.

And yea.. even if you don't believe people will take the movie an spin it.
You underestimate how ignorant so many people in this country are.
You open up the scene with him killing a muslim woman and child.. and its instant justifcation for people to do stuff like this

This.

Terrible movie from a moral perspective.

Post: #34

Strong in some of you, the confirmation bias is.

Post: #35

Looking forward to seeing it later tonight; curious why this film seems to stir up so much energy. Everything is fodder for people to vent their biases.

Post: #36

Some of you condemning this really need to look at the broader perspective. Islam slowly worms its way into the consciousness and validates itself. Sort of like back in the 8-12th century. You need to separate your own civilization from theirs.

I'm not A) white B) redneck) or C) even closely aligned to U.S. conservative values but the overall bigger picture is missed by a great majority of people living comfortable lives in the west. This isn't a culture war it's total war. The thing is the west has the upper hand and could deliver the coup de grace but it won't because of facetious moralizing.

Only cultures who endured it at one point or another like Russia or China really understand the historical implications involved.

Post: #37

I liked the movie because it touched on a lot of the things I experienced when I deployed. I'd have to watch it again to really pick out the scenes but I remember thinking that it showed a lot of things that only soldiers who have gone through it would really get. And I'm not talking about the actual combat for the most part.

To those of you who think the movie offers "justification" for random ass people to start killing Arabs/Muslims outside of the context of war, that argument holds just as much weight as the idea that video games lead to violent crime.

Get a grip.

Post: #38

I had the same realization weambulance. Something about sniper struck me as accurate or 'getting it'. Hurt Locker was the same because without it, no one would known the tremendous job of EOD, even if sizable portions of the movie were inaccurate.

-And I give Eastwood credit for the tv scene.

Post: #39

Michael Moore and Seth Rogen

http://www.usatoday.com/story/life/movie.../21988391/

Post: #40

This was a fantastic movie. I don't understand why people think this movie is some sort of pro-war propaganda.

It had some strains of patriotism early on, showing Chris joining up after 9/11 and saying he's protecting "the greatest country on earth." It then shows the devastating effects of war.

A few things the film shows:

-The initial desire to serve his country turned into a desire to help his guys

-The movie shows the detrimental effect it had on Chris Kyle's psyche and his inability to reconnect with his wife and children between repeated deployments

-The disconnect between civilians and the military. After returning from one of his deployments, Kyle says something like "There's a goddamn war going on and everyone here is living their simple lives. People are dying over there and we're driving to the fucking mall." There was a solid article in The Atlantic about this disconnect--The Tragedy of the American Military

-Moral ambiguity--shooting a child to protect your comrades

-Adjusting back to ordinary life after repeatedly seeing the worst of humanity

-More and more friends getting killed

-PTSD--Chris helping fellow veterans cope after separating from the military and how the film ended

That's all I can think of right now. Highly recommend this movie.

Post: #41

This did revitalize my interest in shooting again. Too bad I can't do it much while abroad.

This looks really sexy. Reviews?

http://www.remington.com/products/firear...range.aspx

Post: #42

I saw this movie tonight. I had wanted to see what all the fuss was about.

Actually, "American Sniper" is neither very good nor very bad. It falls into that category of hum-drum, tepid pro-American war film that never quite rises above the ordinary. It reminded me a little bit of "Black Hawk Down."

The hero of the film is presented as a one-dimensional, tobacco-dipping Texan who manages to spout just about every cliche in the John Wayne lexicon. He's fighting for his kids, his country, and God. Of course he is.

The movie manages to conflate the terror attacks of Dar As-Salaam and 9/11 as part of one connected continuum which lead inevitably to the Iraq invasion, when of course the Iraq invasion had nothing to do with terrorism, and everything to do with imperialism. It would be too much to expect subtlety or intellectual honesty from an old-timer like Eastwood, who probably believes that all of America's recent wars are just and noble enterprises, undertaken as part of the white-man's burden to civilize the backward Arabs.

But, of course, that would require nuanced thinking about world events, something that is in short supply in America.

I'm willing to forgive the political and historical absurdities, since they are so routine here in the US. If we can lay that aside for a bit, I can say that the film was a competent war drama. The action scenes are well done.

But what I can't forgive is Clint Eastwood's constant need to go for weepy emotionalism. He does this over and over in his movies, and it has gotten him into trouble before. It's what doomed "Gran Torino" and "Letters from Iwo Jima" in my opinion. There are blue-pill currents running all through this movie. America, the pure and noble! The stoic, suffering wife! The cute little kids!

I don't buy the snake oil that Eastwood is selling.

There's a scene in the film near the end where the hero is in the middle of a firefight, and he's on the fucking satellite phone talking to his beloved wife, whining about how it's "time for me to come home."

Yeah, right.

Any sorry ass who's on the fucking phone talking to his woman in the middle of combat should be court-martialed.

It's just little things like that which ruin many of Eastwood's films.

And then there was all the blue-pill cliches about meeting his wife at the bar, the boilerplated fights about coming home, the stereotypical portrayal of family life, etc.

This is a generic war film, nothing more. It is the product of a naive, immature culture, that in historical terms is barely past the adolescent stage. Europeans would laugh at this film. Fat, self-satisfied Americans will go to watch this in their suburban cineplexes, and pat themselves on the back at how noble they are.

Those looking for profound messages, or even for decent drama, will be disappointed. If you really want to see a war film that delves into true moral ambiguity, and can truly be called great, see Jean-Pierre Melville's 1969 film "Army of Shadows."

As for "American Sniper"? Watch if you must.


Q

Post: #43

(01-25-2015 12:37 AM)Quintus Curtius Wrote:  I saw this movie tonight. I had wanted to see what all the fuss was about.

But watch if you must.


Q

Thanks, Quintus, I just needed to read this review to not watch this movie.

Post: #44

I haven't seen the movie, but I am interested in the sudden outburst of jingoism and rah rah patriotism from people who have seen it.

Where were all these pro-soldier people before? You don't hear a positive peep from people about their soldiers for years now, and suddenly Hollywood gives them the okay nod and they're immediately waving their red white and blue pom poms? I bet the majority of the people stating how proud they are of this movie were the same jakkovs a few weeks ago saying we deserve to get shot by Muslims if we slightly offend them because that's how the news slanted it.

Post: #45

Anyone calling this movie US war propaganda either has an agenda to push or simply did not see the movie.

American Sniper clearly shows the detrimental affect that war has on people. Just look to the ending of the movie. This isn't really a feel good story where I suddenly want to run to the US Navy and get recruited. It shows the ugly side of a modern war with guerrilla enemies, where a young child might be on the other side of that RPG trying to take down a chopper full of people.

The emotional stuff is a little heavy handed and the movie was obviously Hollywoodized (the whole rivalry with the Iraqi or Syrian sniper obviously didn't happen). So it's a little odd that people are complaining about historical accuracy and whether or not Kyle's accounts are true or not. It's a movie, it's entertainment and obviously Eastwood is going to try to tug at the heart strings.

But I still enjoyed seeing it. Seems like no one can make a movie about the Iraq or Afghanistan war without the left complaining about it. People still see this type of movie in droves though.

Post: #46

It is rare for a movie to be 100 percent in line with a book or history. Some stories, though remarkable, would be pretty boring if not adjusted to some degree.

Lone survivor put in the firefight at the end. Selma is being questioned for historical accuracy. Etc.

Post: #47

I liked the movie, but QC raises great points.

The acting by Cooper is really terrific. His discomfort with discussing his psychological trauma is so palpable, as audience I really felt concerned.

The acting by Miller (the wife) was crap, but the role was crap too. The baby was mortifying.

I liked the stereotyping. He took a Texan and all the prejudices liberals and Euroopeans have about them and put them to shame, because Kyle is portrayed as a very simple, but thoughtful guy who doesn't understand his own emotions even as he is known by everyone for not quitting, ever.

The conflict in Fallujah I liked. It shows how Arabs are both victims and enemies.

But this is nowhere near Eastwood's best. It's not even worth an Oscar nomination. It's too clumsy.

Unforgiven ranks as his best in my book

Post: #48

Those that have never been in combat will never understand it, but are the most critical of it.

Post: #49

(01-22-2015 02:01 PM)komatiite Wrote:  You are either With the American Sniper... Or Against him, standing along Lindy West...
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree...chris-kyle

I didn't know anything about this guy but if Lindy West hates him I'll definitely get his book.

Post: #50

For me the greatest sniper in American military history was Carlos Hathcock, a Marine who served during the Vietnam War.

Greatness is not just about body counts. Hathcock had about 93 confirmed kills (probably more), but he was operating in a much more difficult environment than this SEAL sniper in Iraq.

http://www.wearethemighty.com/marine-ame...ar-2015-01

Hathcock was often alone or with his spotter for days or weeks in the bush, with little food or supplies, totally on his own. Hathcock stalked his enemies with relentless intensity, putting himself directly in enemy territory with no support for weeks on end. Without doubt, he did far more with much less than did Chris Kyle. That's not to detract from Kyle's achievements, but I think Hathcock deserves the title of the "greatest."

Hathcock literally wrote the book on modern American sniping. Before him, there was little in the way of official doctrine for US military sniping. Sniping is a true military art and discipline, but in the 1960s this was not generally recognized. He helped found the USMC Sniper School in Quantico, VA.





I've read his book, and it's a fantastic account of endurance under adversity. Highly recommended. But because he was a quiet, soft-spoken guy from Arkansas, and not a braggart, he didn't get the attention from the media that some others have received.