What American Sniper did is much, much worse than rewrite history

Recent Forum Topics › Forums › The Public House › What American Sniper did is much, much worse than rewrite history

Viewing 30 posts - 1 through 30 (of 62 total)
1 2 3
  • Author
    Posts
  • January 23, 2015 at 2:56 am #17200
    zn
    Moderator

    Every movie rewrites history. What American Sniper did is much, much worse.

    http://www.vox.com/2015/1/22/7859791/american-sniper-iraq

    American Sniper has a problem. It’s a movie about a black-and-white distinction between good and evil, but it is set almost entirely in the Iraq War, which can only be honestly portrayed in shades of gray.

    Faced with a choice between altering its narrative to account for that gray versus altering the facts of history, the film chose the latter. It adopted an “honesty shmonesty” approach to the war: in its retelling, Iraq was a fight of Good Americans against Bad Terrorists, led by Chris Kyle, the Good-est American of them all.

    The result is a sort of Hezbollah martyr video for the Fox News set; recruitment propaganda for culture-war extremists. In the world of this movie, the Iraq war is an extension of the war on terror; heroes with guns are our only hope of salvation; and anyone who doubts that is part of the problem. And if the film’s historic box office success and many award nominations are anything to go by, that propaganda is frighteningly effective.

    Warning: This article discusses the plot of American Sniper in its entirety.

    A black and white war

    american sniper promo 1

    (Warner Bros)

    The movie’s central moral metaphor is voiced by Kyle’s father during a flashback to his childhood. There are, he explains, three types of people in the world: wolves, sheep, and sheepdogs. The evil wolves threaten the sheep. The sheep are good people, but vulnerable to harm because they’re too naive to understand that evil exists. That means that it’s up to the sheepdogs to protect them from harm.

    In that metaphor, Kyle is America’s border collie, shepherding the weak and vulnerable away from harm. The movie’s Big Bad Wolves are al-Qaeda terrorists, led by a psychopathic child-torturer and his marksman sidekick.

    And the sheep? They would be the other Americans who lack Chris Kyle’s vision and fortitude, and fail to understand that you’re either with us or against us. That includes fellow US troops who lack Kyle’s skill, or who dare to question the war. Iraqis, by contrast, are not sheep: in this movie they’re either wolves themselves, or nameless collateral damage. Mostly wolves, though.
    The movie’s “wolf” problem

    Wolf

    (Shutterstock.com)

    American Sniper stacks its narrative deck, using imaginary history and characters to give Kyle a suitably evil foe to fight. While it’s never great to see a movie falsify a true story, American Sniper’s disdainful attitude towards the truth is especially disingenuous in light of its broader “you’re either with us, or you’re a naive sheep” narrative.

    To maximize the bigness and badness of its available wolves, American Sniper rewrites history, turning the Iraq War into a response to the attacks of September 11, 2001.

    The film finds time for entire scenes of Kyle viewing TV news reports about al-Qaeda’s 1998 bombings of US embassies, and the planes hitting the Twin Towers on 9/11. And when Kyle gets to Iraq, his commander explains that they are hunting the leaders of al-Qaeda in Iraq. The inference we’re supposed to gather is clear: that Kyle is fighting the same people who attacked America in 1998 and 2001.

    By contrast, the actual reasons for the Iraq war go unmentioned. The words “Saddam Hussein” are never uttered in the movie. Nor are “George Bush,” “Sunni,” “Shia,” or “weapons of mass destruction.”

    As Zack Beauchamp points out, this depiction of the war is breathtakingly dishonest. The Iraq War was not a response to 9/11: this was a war America chose, officially based on reports of weapons of mass destruction that were implausible at the time, and that have since been proven false.

    In real life, Chris Kyle argued that America owed its troops support because those troops did not get to choose the wars they fought, or the strategy they followed: they wrote the government a blank check for their lives and waited to see if it would get cashed. There’s a very interesting movie to be made about that idea, and about what it means to be heroic during a misguided war. American Sniper isn’t it.

    Instead, the film heightens the good-vs-evil stakes by supplying Kyle with two fictionalized enemies: “The Butcher,” an al-Qaeda in Iraq enforcer famed for his brutality, and “Mustafa,” a Syrian who once won Olympic medals for marksmanship, but now spends his days as an al-Qaeda sniper, picking off American soldiers as they go about their noble work.

    The Butcher is evil personified. He uses a power drill to torture a child to death in front of his screaming family. His workshop in a disused restaurant looks like the set for a cooking show hosted by Hannibal Lecter: a chained, mangled corpse dangles from the kitchen ceiling, and larder shelves are piled with dismembered body parts.

    Mustafa, on the other hand, is Bizarro Chris Kyle. He’s equally skilled with a rifle, but instead of heroically protecting American troops, he’s picking them off, one by one. You know, evilly.
    The movie’s “sheep” problem

    Sheep

    (Shutterstock.com)

    The movie’s “sheep” problem is equally disturbing. The sheep are not the Iraqi civilians terrorized by the Butcher. With the exception of one murdered child and his payoff-demanding father, the Iraqis in the film are pretty much all terrorists or terrorist sympathizers. Rather, the sheep Kyle protects are the other American soldiers. For a movie that’s been lauded for its support of the troops, that’s a surprisingly disdainful view of their bravery and skill.

    In the movie’s telling, ordinary soldiers’ lack of SEAL training makes them sitting ducks (sitting sheep?) for insurgent attacks. At one point, Kyle leaves his sniper’s perch to lead a group of Marines as they clear buildings in Fallujah, telling the awed soldiers, who burst with gratitude that the hero Chris Kyle has deigned to join them, that he can show them a thing or two. Even Kyle’s own brother is given sheep status: when he deploys with the Marines, it’s cause for family concern, not celebration of his heroism. And when Kyle sees him later on an Iraqi airstrip, he’s shaking with exhaustion from battlefield trauma.

    A different movie might have acknowledged that those soldiers were, in many ways, more heroic than Kyle. They took greater risks with less training, and many of them lost their lives in battle as a result. American Sniper, on the other hand, presents them as an undifferentiated mass of grunts, waiting for Chris Kyle to save them.

    Worse, the movie’s sheep-wolves-sheepdog narrative implicitly blames them for their own peril. The “sheep” are in danger because they are too naive to understand the evil in the world, not just because they are under-trained or under-resourced.

    The movie is very clear on that point. In a scene depicting the funeral of Marc Lee, Kyle’s friend and fellow SEAL who was killed in action, his mother reads a moving letter Lee wrote a few weeks before his death, in which he questions the legitimacy of wartime glory, and worries that it can lead to an “unjustified crusade.” It seems, for a moment, like the film might be attempting to grapple with the justness of the war itself, or at least consider the possibility that a person could be both heroic as an individual, and ambivalent about the greater mission.

    Nope.

    Instead, the following scene features an angry rant from Kyle, who insists that “that letter” killed Marc, not the bullet that hit him. In the world of American Sniper, doubting your role as champion of good and enemy of evil is a fatal condition.
    The “sheepdog” problem

    Sheepdog

    (Shutterstock.com)

    That with-us-or against us construction is a problem, because the movie isn’t just selling a vision of the Iraq War, it’s selling a vision of violence as the only effective resistance to the forces of evil.

    In the movie, Kyle is infallible. We never once see him shoot a civilian who he mistakes for a combatant. When another soldier tells him that the wife of one of Kyle’s “kills” claims he was carrying a Koran, not a gun, Kyle dismisses his concerns by saying “I don’t know what a Koran looks like,” before describing in detail the exact type of gun the man was holding.

    When Kyle shoots a young child and a woman in an early scene, the film is careful to show the grenade they were carrying exploding, leaving no doubt that Kyle was correct about the danger they posed to nearby American troops. In a climactic scene, when Kyle disobeys an order to hold his fire and nearly gets his entire team killed, the movie still eventually validates his decision: he kills the bad guy, and all the good guys survive unharmed.

    That reinforces the movie’s construct of good vs. evil — sheep vs. wolves. Because Kyle is always right, any limits on his use of violence would, by definition, leave American soldiers in danger. That’s something only a naive sheep could want.

    But pretending that heroic sheepdog warriors never accidentally kill civilians is a dangerous lie about the true nature of combat. In the real world, even well-intentioned soldiers do sometimes kill innocent people, because that is how war works.

    Pretending otherwise is an insult to the many American veterans who have to spend the rest of their lives grappling with their actions during the Iraq War, and to the thousands of innocent Iraqis who have been killed since the conflict began. And it’s also dangerous, because it tells Americans not to worry about the harm our wars may do to civilians, who are probably all terrorists anyway. It’s bad enough to hide that truth behind euphemisms like “collateral damage,” but much worse to write it out of the story completely.
    The result: recruitment propaganda for an imaginary war

    American Sniper Tweets

    (Cryanne)

    Given all of that, it is hardly surprising that many viewers appear to have absorbed American Sniper’s message as “Muslims are evil and should be killed.”

    It would be bad enough if this were merely a shockingly inaccurate portrayal of the Iraq War and an appallingly insulting one of Iraqis themselves. But it’s worse, because this movie feeds the narrative that the civilized world is at war with Muslims, that the only solution is to respond with crushing violence, and that people who refuse to believe that are naïfs — sheep, rather — who are dangerously undermining America’s security.

    That’s not a story that’s limited to Clint-Eastwood-directed warsploitation movies. You’ll hear the same thing on Fox News, where this month Jeanine Pirro delivered a bloodthirsty rant calling for mass murder as a solution to the problem of Muslim extremism, and the network repeatedly made the false claim that radical Islamists had taken over parts of European cities, turning them into Muslim-only “no-go” zones.

    That’s its own form of dangerous extremism. Its premises are wrong, and its results are dangerous. By feeding that narrative, American Sniper is part of the problem.

    January 23, 2015 at 4:29 pm #17234
    nittany ram
    Moderator

    http://www.salon.com/2015/01/23/7_enormous_lies_american_sniper_is_telling_america_partner/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=socialflow

    January 23, 2015 at 11:39 pm #17265
    waterfield
    Participant

    The article treats the movie as if it was a political statement in support of good v evil. It was not. It was a movie like most movies-designed to make dough. The reason it was and is highly acclaimed is not because there are millions of right wingers who champion anything that alleges we are divine. The reason is because it is so well done it deserves consideration for an Oscar. The political morality of our war in Iraq is for another day and another movie. In the instant matter Eastwood again does a masterful job.

    January 24, 2015 at 4:01 am #17273
    zn
    Moderator

    It was a movie like most movies-designed to make dough.

    Yeah, they all are. And also every single movie has a political view of life inside it. It can’t be helped. Humans make movies, humans see the world through their own political perspectives.

    And in this one, one part of the political view is that 9/11 was tied to the war in iraq.

    But it wasn’t. That was one of the lies used to get support for the war.

    January 24, 2015 at 8:43 am #17280
    PA Ram
    Participant

    I gotta say, that reviewer paid closer attention to the movie than I did.

    I kind of went in with a different perspective, looking for something a bit different. I have never read “American Sniper” and knew very little about Chris Kyle. Having said that, I did not expect the movie to be completely faithful to Chris Kyle “the man” and more or less expected to see Chris Kyle “the legend” or “the myth”.

    While the film may have a political perspective(I don’t disagree completely with what the reviewer said about the politics of the film) I was looking at it on a more personal level. As for the politics–that wasn’t really at issue for this film for me because this is a biopic. It’s about a man. It’s about HIS motivations and HIS worldview and the film is shown as a story mostly through HIS eyes. For all I know Chris Kyle DID believe that Iraqis were responsible for 9/11.

    I don’t know that.

    But to try to horseshoe the proper historical perspective and make the film about politics would have moved the film away from who this person was in life. What made him tick? What moved him? What did he live for? What lies did he tell himself? How can you shoot someone with a clear conscience? Well, if you have doubts about the mission or begin to question your purpose you don’t. You can’t.

    I can imagine Chris Kyle telling himself what he needed to believe. I can imagine him believing it. Eastwood had a certain responsibility to do that. I believe that people will take what they want from the film. If you are a Fox viewer you may look at it as a rallying cry against all Muslims or some such crazy nonsense. If you opposed the war you may take away the view that it is nothing but a propaganda piece for the right.

    And it can be both of those things.

    That is the way films work and this one can certainly work that way: it’s as much about what YOU bring to it.

    As I said, I didn’t bring that with me to the theater. I was mostly interested in the mental makeup of Chris Kyle and of the effect of war on the men and their families. That’s what I focused on. To truly tell that tale the film would have needed another hour. I thought some of the strongest moments were actually the scenes involving his wife Taya. Chris Kyle came across as very stoic, reserved–difficult to know. But his wife(played by Sienna Miller) was a glimpse at the pain and problems and price that is paid by more than just the guy who goes to war. There really wasn’t enough of the AFTER effect of all this to round out the profile of Chris Kyle the man. Maybe what you saw was all there was.

    But it was about Chris Kyle, IMO.

    Love him, hate him, I think Eastwood tried to stay focused on that. And in that context the 9/11 scenes and reaction make perfect sense.

    It has nothing to do with the reality of the situation–it’s what Chris Kyle’s reality was.

    For this film, that’s what mattered.

    I liked the film. I have always liked to see films that explore the effects of battle on veterans and even more so on their families.

    Should there be more films about the truth of the Iraq war and the lies? Of course.

    Are there veterans who may represent that story better than Chris Kyle? I’m sure of it.

    This was not that story.

    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. " Philip K. Dick

    January 24, 2015 at 12:02 pm #17290
    waterfield
    Participant

    I suppose I look upon movies differently. To me they are art. I don’t see them for historical accuracy or political lessons or even social commentary. Just art. I can appreciate a beautiful sculpture of Christ w/o a belief in the resurrection. As art the movie deserves consideration as one of the best films of the year.

    January 24, 2015 at 1:00 pm #17293
    zn
    Moderator
    waterfield wrote:

    I suppose I look upon movies differently. To me they are art. I don’t see them for historical accuracy or political lessons or even social commentary. Just art. I can appreciate a beautiful sculpture of Christ w/o a belief in the resurrection. As art the movie deserves consideration as one of the best films of the year.

    Art always contains political messages. It just does. Humans make art. Are reflects people’s values and perceptions.

    I mean would you say a japanese movie about WW2 which included the premise that the japanese attacked pearl harbor to retaliate for an american strike on japanese forces had no political message and should be seen only as art? Of course it would have a political message. It would also be art. The 2 things just aren’t mutually exclusive.

    Simple example from the past about a classic. In Shakespeare’s macbeth, macbeth is portrayed as an ambitious wrong-doer who usurps the throne from the rightful heir, Malcolm, the son of Duncan. Macbeth murders Duncan to be king.

    But the histories Shakespeare based that play on say that Duncan was an ineffective king, macbeth was a popular king, and the 11th century scots elected kings from a handful of eligible nobles, of which macbeth was one. There was no such thing as a rightful king by succession.

    Yet at the same time the real king in Shakespeare’s time, James I, was scottish, and for propaganda purposes traced his lineage back to banquo, a scottish noble macbeth murders in the play. James I also claimed the english throne on the basis of succession.

    So Shakespeare alters history to represent the current king, James I, in a flattering light, makes it clear that succession is based on lineage not election, and erases the fact that macbeth was for a long time an effective and popular king.

    That’s politics.

    It’s in everything. People can’t help it.

    It is a lie that the USA went to war in iraq because of 9/11. It’s one of the lies that helped drive the war effort.

    That means the movie took sides.

    People who choose not to ignore that fact have a very strong point. They’re not just “failing to appreciate art.” They just approach all art as human and full of cross-purposes. Which it always is.

    For example, to some, a statue of christ is by its very nature idolatrous. The protestant christ appears very different from the medieval catholic christ. And so on. That kind of thing is always part of it.

    Birth of a Nation is a great film aesthetically. It also endorses the rise of the KKK.

    January 24, 2015 at 2:45 pm #17297
    PA Ram
    Participant

    It’s in everything. People can’t help it.

    It is a lie that the USA went to war in iraq because of 9/11. It’s one of the lies that helped drive the war effort.

    That means the movie took sides.

    It’s going to be this sort of polarizing film. I can see that.

    I can see the “rah-rah” film.

    But I’m not sure how this film would have been made otherwise.

    I mean, an honest biopic about Chris Kyle that was anti war? A film that made him question all of this? A film that made him struggle with the how and why of this particular war? It may have been the more proper politically correct film but it would have moved away from his view and his story. Kyle BELIEVED all of this. He just did. This film is based on HIS book.

    While the criticism of the politics of the film may be accurate, I think there are other aspects to the film and story and I found those interesting and actually more of the reason I went to see the film in the first place.

    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. " Philip K. Dick

    January 24, 2015 at 4:08 pm #17302
    zn
    Moderator
    PA Ram wrote:

    I mean, an honest biopic about Chris Kyle that was anti war? A film that made him question all of this? A film that made him struggle with the how and why of this particular war? It

    Well in terms of this discussion, I didn’t ask that the film be anti-war. Just that it not uphold that one particular lie.

    That’s the one and only thing I’ve been saying. It doesn’t have to support THAT particular lie. And it was not necessary to support that lie. After all, you could make a film where the central character has that illusion even if it is made clear it’s not true.

    But then…all that aside…on another level, the questions you ask can lead to a very specific question. Given everything you say, why make the film at all…unless you support all the things you say the film “has to be?” There are a million different films that could be made about Iraq. Why that one?

    The answer can’t be “because people want to see that story.” Because all that means is that you can only imagine films that support dominant ideological fantasies. Well actually not only is art always political in one way shape or form, it doesn’t always have to support dominant ideological fantasies. The fact that movies often do do that is not a defense of doing so, it’s just a description of how dominant ideological fantasies get reinforced.

    January 24, 2015 at 4:59 pm #17303
    waterfield
    Participant

    “art always contains political messages”

    I’m not sure about that-at all. But assuming that’s true the question becomes whether one accepts the message. By that I mean it’s up to the viewer not the film maker in terms of what is gained or lost from the art. For instance I just saw what I consider the best movie of the year- The Imitation Game. There were all kinds of “political messages” I suppose since it involved the sacrifices of human life to keep a secret to protect the “greater good”, the question of homosexuality at a time in Britain during the war’ the use of digital machinery to actually kill people, the war itself, blah, blah. But what I chose to “accept” was a masterful adoption of a book I had once read, the best acting from a leading actor I have experienced in years, and an absolute wonderful soundtrack. Whatever “political” messages were in the movie I didn’t get (accept). So at bottom is that when it comes to accepting what art offers us we come in all sizes, shapes and colors -don’t we?

    January 24, 2015 at 5:19 pm #17304
    PA Ram
    Participant
    waterfield wrote:

    “art always contains political messages”

    I’m not sure about that-at all. But assuming that’s true the question becomes whether one accepts the message. By that I mean it’s up to the viewer not the film maker in terms of what is gained or lost from the art. For instance I just saw what I consider the best movie of the year- The Imitation Game. There were all kinds of “political messages” I suppose since it involved the sacrifices of human life to keep a secret to protect the “greater good”, the question of homosexuality at a time in Britain during the war’ the use of digital machinery to actually kill people, the war itself, blah, blah. But what I chose to “accept” was a masterful adoption of a book I had once read, the best acting from a leading actor I have experienced in years, and an absolute wonderful soundtrack. Whatever “political” messages were in the movie I didn’t get (accept). So at bottom is that when it comes to accepting what art offers us we come in all sizes, shapes and colors -don’t we?

    I agree with that.

    By the way, there are a lot of questions about the historical accuracies of “The Imitation Game” and I thought the movie worked fine as a piece of entertainment while focusing on the central story. Still–some people are especially angry about Turing being somewhat represented as a traitor because of a certain secret he kept about someone(I’m sure you know what I mean)and yet I don’t think that was the film’s objective at all. It was just something that was part of this particular film.

    And you’re right–the acting was fantastic. The story was very interesting. As a film I accept that but do not hold it to the strict standards of a documentary on Turing’s life.

    I look at “American Sniper” in a similar way. The film tried to capture this particular human being based on his very own words(or at least with the help of his writer).

    Where true life and fiction begin in something like a biopic is often murky and seldom completely accurate.

    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. " Philip K. Dick

    January 24, 2015 at 5:30 pm #17305
    zn
    Moderator

    ’m not sure about that-at all. But assuming that’s true the question becomes whether one accepts the message

    Well actually that has nothing to do with it, more often than not. I simply do not accept the political messages in Shakespeare plays because they endorse the Elizabethan class hierarchy. But while I know that’s there, it doesn’t interfere with aesthetic pleasure. I don’t need to agree with the politics of a novel play or film.

    And it’s not that I do or do not accept the message of Sniper. I didn’t comment on that one way or another.

    All I said was that the film contains a lie.

    It’s a really big lie, too. One that bulldozed a lot of people back in that decade.

    …

    January 24, 2015 at 6:09 pm #17312
    PA Ram
    Participant
    zn wrote:

    I mean, an honest biopic about Chris Kyle that was anti war? A film that made him question all of this? A film that made him struggle with the how and why of this particular war? It

    Well in terms of this discussion, I didn’t ask that the film be anti-war. Just that it not uphold that one particular lie.

    That’s the one and only thing I’ve been saying. It doesn’t have to support THAT particular lie. And it was not necessary to support that lie. After all, you could make a film where the central character has that illusion even if it is made clear it’s not true.

    But then…all that aside…on another level, the questions you ask can lead to a very specific question. Given everything you say, why make the film at all…unless you support all the things you say the film “has to be?” There are a million different films that could be made about Iraq. Why that one?

    The answer can’t be “because people want to see that story.” Because all that means is that you can only imagine films that support dominant ideological fantasies. Well actually not only is art always political in one way shape or form, it doesn’t always have to support dominant ideological fantasies. The fact that movies often do do that is not a defense of doing so, it’s just a description of how dominant ideological fantasies get reinforced.

    Maybe I phrased that poorly. It isn’t so much anti war as “Did Kyle believe this lie?” Did he NEED to believe this lie to do the things he did? Did he just choose to believe it? You criticize the film for not making it plain that the Iraq war was based on a lie(although one character does have doubts–he’s just so different from Kyle’s certain attitude about this)but the point I’m trying to make is that the film was not interested in that question–it was interested in what Chris Kyle thought. Now maybe that doesn’t interest you but as a film it could have made the point that this was all based on a lie if it wanted to–but the film was attempting to show the motivation for Kyle–the things HE used and there is no room for self-doubt in that world.

    Placing the truth in there would have been fine–but now Kyle has to deal with that somehow in the film.

    He didn’t do that in real life.

    You can’t slam the truth in the middle of that film and expect Kyle to ignore it.

    The film does not have narrator with the voice of God who declares these historical events accurate. It simply shows Kyle watching the towers fall before he heads off to Iraq. Now the fact that Iraq had nothing to do with the towers does nothing to take away that event being used for his own motivation. To me, that was clear.

    Chris Kyle is not someone who is easily read. He doesn’t wear emotions and feelings on his sleeve. So if you are going to get into the psychology of this man, you have to look at the obvious things and motivations.

    Why make this film at all?

    Well, why make any film that twists truths in any way?

    It isn’t a documentary.

    I have been very clear of where I stand on the whole Iraq war on the boards and I am far from being a right wing war hawk. I opposed the war from the start. I called them on every lie. But I’m very different from Chris Kyle and yet–I also have a perspective where I get just a little bit of him.

    When I went to Desert Storm I had to convince myself on some level that what I was doing was right and important. I left my wife and my son who was not yet a year old, and I flew to a distant place not knowing when or IF I’d ever come home. There I was, in that situation. Should I have been in the military? Should I have refused to go? Well, that’s up to opinion, but the fact is that once I was there it had to make sense to me. We were kicking Saddam out of Kuwait. That’s what I told myself. I didn’t think about oil or geopolitics in any way. I didn’t think about things that were made up to draw us into that conflict.

    I mostly thought about getting it done so I could go home. The sooner the better.

    Would my son even know me when I got back?

    How difficult would this be on my marriage? How was my wife coping with things? If there were problems she had to deal with it.

    I was helpless to do anything.

    I hated Saddam. I didn’t want to be there. I wanted it over.

    When “American Sniper” begins there is the sound of a loudspeaker calling Muslims to prayer. The first time I heard that I was in the dark, under blackout conditions holding an M-16 and 90 rounds of ammo. I had no idea what it was. No one told me anything about it. It was loud. It was in another language. For all I knew it was an attack call. I didn’t know to expect it. Nothing. I had no night vision goggles. It was just blackness.

    There were times of chaos.

    It’s not an easy situation to be in because you don’t really know what to expect. Bomb scares would send us back to our tents. Keep your chem gear ready in case a scud alarm sounds. And when you put it on–do it right. Just in case.

    It’s incredibly difficult on you and your family.

    The one thing you don’t have time for is politics.

    So as I watch the film I see a guy who has created the narrative that allows him to do what he apparently LIKES to do. Not every soldier is Chris Kyle. But this is his movie. That’s really how I look at it.

    I just disagree with this film having to drive home the historically accurate point that this was was based on lies. It shows Chris Kyle’s motivation. You can make a different film that doesn’t. And you can think whatever you want about Chris Kyle. I wouldn’t describe myself a particular fan. But I was interested in the effects of war on the people in it and their family. I lived through that and politics aside, I still feel for the men and women who are living it to this day. I do not support any of these wars. But I support them.

    I like that the film addressed some of this. I think that’s an important subject. I can’t account for what other people bring to the film or get out of it. I doubt that this film will convince anyone who knows the truth that Iraq didn’t attack us differently, and I doubt it will convince the believers any different. Nothing would.

    History has its truth.

    This is a film about one guy. It’s his truth.

    • This reply was modified 9 years, 8 months ago by PA Ram.

    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. " Philip K. Dick

    January 24, 2015 at 9:12 pm #17315
    nittany ram
    Moderator
    PA Ram wrote:

    As I said, I didn’t bring that with me to the theater. I was mostly interested in the mental makeup of Chris Kyle and of the effect of war on the men and their families. That’s what I focused on. To truly tell that tale the film would have needed another hour. I thought some of the strongest moments were actually the scenes involving his wife Taya. Chris Kyle came across as very stoic, reserved–difficult to know. But his wife(played by Sienna Miller) was a glimpse at the pain and problems and price that is paid by more than just the guy who goes to war. There really wasn’t enough of the AFTER effect of all this to round out the profile of Chris Kyle the man. Maybe what you saw was all there was.

    But it was about Chris Kyle, IMO.

    Actually the film wasn’t really about Chris Kyle. Not the real Chris Kyle anyway. It doesn’t accurately depict his “mental make-up”.

    From the link I posted earlier…

    3. The Film Portrays Chris Kyle as Tormented By His Actions: Multiple scenes in the movie portray Kyle as haunted by his service. One of the film’s earliest reviews praised it for showing the “emotional torment of so many military men and women.” But that torment is completely absent from the book the film is based on. In the book, Kyle refers to everyone he fought as “savage, despicable” evil. He writes, “I only wish I had killed more.” He also writes, “I loved what I did. I still do. If circumstances were different – if my family didn’t need me – I’d be back in a heartbeat. I’m not lying or exaggerating to say it was fun. I had the time of my life being a SEAL.” On an appearance on Conan O’Brien’s show he laughs about accidentally shooting an Iraqi insurgent. He once told a military investigator that he doesn’t “shoot people with Korans. I’d like to, but I don’t.”

    January 24, 2015 at 9:53 pm #17316
    zn
    Moderator

    Whatever “political” messages were in the movie I didn’t get (accept).

    The film makes it a tragic story that a man who contributed so much is prosecuted for being gay. You and I take that story in stride. If people are anti-gay, which many still are, they don’t take that part of the story in stride.

    So yes that’s part of the film.

    You can’t slam the truth in the middle of that film and expect Kyle to ignore it.

    HE as a character doesn’t have to get that it’s a lie (ie. he never has to get that 9/11 and Iraq were not connected). But there are many ways for the film to not SIDE WITH the lie…if it wanted to do it that way, it could. (For example, just have someone say about him, in a scene that he’s not in, that he buys this whole 9/11 thing.) But I think it DOES go along because it takes seriously his whole sheepdog thing. It doesn’t want that to get punctured. Ironically, it doing it that way, it invited controversy.

    And, while controversial, yes, taken in its own terms, it’s a good film, just in terms of aesthetic quality.

    January 24, 2015 at 10:04 pm #17317
    PA Ram
    Participant
    nittany ram wrote:

    <div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>PA Ram wrote:</div>
    As I said, I didn’t bring that with me to the theater. I was mostly interested in the mental makeup of Chris Kyle and of the effect of war on the men and their families. That’s what I focused on. To truly tell that tale the film would have needed another hour. I thought some of the strongest moments were actually the scenes involving his wife Taya. Chris Kyle came across as very stoic, reserved–difficult to know. But his wife(played by Sienna Miller) was a glimpse at the pain and problems and price that is paid by more than just the guy who goes to war. There really wasn’t enough of the AFTER effect of all this to round out the profile of Chris Kyle the man. Maybe what you saw was all there was.

    But it was about Chris Kyle, IMO.

    Actually the film wasn’t really about Chris Kyle. Not the real Chris Kyle anyway. It doesn’t accurately depict his “mental make-up”.

    From the link I posted earlier…

    3. The Film Portrays Chris Kyle as Tormented By His Actions: Multiple scenes in the movie portray Kyle as haunted by his service. One of the film’s earliest reviews praised it for showing the “emotional torment of so many military men and women.” But that torment is completely absent from the book the film is based on. In the book, Kyle refers to everyone he fought as “savage, despicable” evil. He writes, “I only wish I had killed more.” He also writes, “I loved what I did. I still do. If circumstances were different – if my family didn’t need me – I’d be back in a heartbeat. I’m not lying or exaggerating to say it was fun. I had the time of my life being a SEAL.” On an appearance on Conan O’Brien’s show he laughs about accidentally shooting an Iraqi insurgent. He once told a military investigator that he doesn’t “shoot people with Korans. I’d like to, but I don’t.”

    I did not really get that from the film.

    As I said, he’s kind of tough to read. He wasn’t haunted by anything he did to the enemy–he even says that in the film. So if that’s what’s in the book it’s consistent. The only thing that bothered him, he says, are the lives of soldiers he didn’t feel he saved(again–true or not he told himself that what he did was important to lives that mattered to him). That’s where his torment came from–that and eventually from the problems of his family.

    So I’d say it’s kind of faithful in that respect.

    I really don’t know what else to say. I’m not trying to defend who he was as a human being. Or any soldier, really. Everyone can decide for themselves about that.

    Unless I missed something–I did not see him regretting his actions against the Iraqis.

    I’m not sure how that’s not showing the real Chris Kyle.

    Was he a hero?

    Well, that is going to be subjective because the Iraqis would say that he wasn’t. Many Americans feel he wasn’t. The soldiers he may have saved would probably feel differently about it. The families of the soldiers he may have saved probably feel differently about it. Is that selfish? No doubt.

    But that’s the perspective of this film.

    I don’t get the inconsistency or false argument but again–I never read the book. From what I’ve read about the book, I thought it was consistent.

    There are other veterans in the film, sort of side stories. One guy was questioning what was happening, his role, and he sort of clashed with Kyle about that–but the film included that. The character is based on a real person but I don’t know how true it is. There are other vets–one guy with an artificial leg who thanks Kyle for saving him and urges him to go to the VA to help out vets who have come home with problems. Kyle did that. I don’t know why. Was he bored? Did he need another mission?

    The film doesn’t explore enough of that.

    The stress and pain of the family is something else the film addresses if more briefly than I’d like–and that is also an important subject.

    Some people will look at vets as bad guys. Killers. Every bit as responsible as the government that sent them. And their families are an afterthought if at all. I just don’t think that’s the way it works in real life. I tried to explain my particular mindset and what you do to yourself and how you think. I am interested in that seldom explored subject.

    This film at least pointed in that direction.

    It is hardly the final word on the Iraq war.

    So I took that to the film. I liked the film.

    But I can see why some people will see it ONLY as a propaganda piece for war. I get that too.

    Like I said, polarizing.

    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. " Philip K. Dick

    January 24, 2015 at 10:11 pm #17318
    PA Ram
    Participant
    zn wrote:

    Whatever “political” messages were in the movie I didn’t get (accept).

    The film makes it a tragic story that a man who contributed so much is prosecuted for being gay. You and I take that story in stride. If people are anti-gay, which many still are, they don’t take that part of the story in stride.

    So yes that’s part of the film.

    You can’t slam the truth in the middle of that film and expect Kyle to ignore it.

    HE as a character doesn’t have to get that it’s a lie (ie. he never has to get that 9/11 and Iraq were not connected). But there are many ways for the film to not SIDE WITH the lie…if it wanted to do it that way, it could. (For example, just have someone say about him, in a scene that he’s not in, that he buys this whole 9/11 thing.) But I think it DOES go along because it takes seriously his whole sheepdog thing. It doesn’t want that to get punctured. Ironically, it doing it that way, it invited controversy.

    And, while controversial, yes, taken in its own terms, it’s a good film, just in terms of aesthetic quality.

    Well, zn–I hope you know, in terms of the Iraq war–or any war really, I’m on your side in that I’d love the truth to be out there more than it is. Did this film miss that opportunity? Maybe it did. And hopefully some film will come along that hammers the point home. However, I’m thinking that at this stage people already believe what they believe. I don’t know that anything will change it. Still, it doesn’t mean it should not be said anyway.

    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. " Philip K. Dick

    January 24, 2015 at 11:30 pm #17320
    waterfield
    Participant

    “All I said was that the film contains a lie.

    It’s a really big lie, too. One that bulldozed a lot of people back in that decade.”

    Ok-I get that. And I understand how some might feel the movie perpetrates the lie about 9/11. But so did the movie JFK and so did the movie the Da Vinci Code and hundreds of others. Nevertheless, knowing this I thoroughly enjoyed both movies for reasons independent of any purported attempt to portray truth. Which is my point. Art is for the beholder not the artist. Eastwood is not stupid. He knows as well as anyone 9/11 was unrelated to Iraq. Indeed, if I’m not mistaken he was consistently against the war in Iraq. As PA wrote the movie was about a man not about an unjust war. That was Eastwood’s goal. Maybe someday he will do a movie about how wrong we were to use 9/11 as a pretext to go into Iraq. But back to my point about art. As an example as to what I’m trying to say is my son and I on separate occasions saw the movie “Gravity”. He thought it horrible because of the total unrealistic scenes -he is somewhat of a NASA freak. OTOH I thoroughly enjoyed the 3D special effects and walked from the theater glad I had experienced it. And isn’t that the purpose of art? Maybe I just enjoy movies and don’t look beyond that. Heck I even enjoy watching films on the Hallmark channel-especially on rainy days. So I suppose one can argue that I’m just shallow. Maybe so.

    January 24, 2015 at 11:32 pm #17321
    zn
    Moderator

    The way I do this, I can have a critique like that of a film and still like it. I just counter-balance all the different stuff. You can’t look for movies to be always mirroring your own views. So I am always doing all the things at once — ideological critique, wasn’t that scene cool, great film, it’s still a commercial for mainstream beliefs, what a great film, etc. It’s like talking to the dog, even though you the the dog doesn’t understand. But you get pleasure from talking to it anyway.

    January 24, 2015 at 11:39 pm #17322
    waterfield
    Participant

    Man, that quite a story on your experience there. Indeed you provide a perspective of the film that most if not all critics lack. I’m glad you shared it. You took something from the film that no one here could ever have.

    January 25, 2015 at 12:01 am #17323
    waterfield
    Participant

    “The film makes it a tragic story that a man who contributed so much is prosecuted for being gay. You and I take that story in stride. If people are anti-gay, which many still are, they don’t take that part of the story in stride.

    So yes that’s part of the film.”

    I think your making my point. Art is for the beholder and not the artist. I appreciated how well done the film was as it relates to Turing’s lifestyle. An anti-gay moviegoer likely would not. An anti-war critic would argue Sniper perpetrates a lie. An actual soldier might appreciate the movies focus on the emotional trauma of a soldier w/o considering “the lie”. We are all unique and there is no right or wrong way to view art.

    January 25, 2015 at 12:08 am #17324
    waterfield
    Participant

    “It’s like talking to the dog, even though you the the dog doesn’t understand. But you get pleasure from talking to it anyway.”

    Now you’ve gone too far with your dog analogy. My dog Pepper has what we call in special education “receptive language”. If I say “ball” he goes and finds a ball. If I say “toy” he goes and finds a toy cat. If I say “dinner” he sits by his bowl. If I say “poop” he….well not quite yet.

    January 25, 2015 at 1:29 am #17326
    zn
    Moderator

    Ok-I get that. And I understand how some might feel the movie perpetrates the lie about 9/11. But so did the movie JFK and so did the movie the Da Vinci Code and hundreds of others. Nevertheless, knowing this I thoroughly enjoyed both movies for reasons independent of any purported attempt to portray truth.

    Or reasons independent of any attempt to repeat a lie about a war we opposed?

    That either means something to you or it doesn’t.

    If it doesn;t…it really is at the level of “just flicks” movies like JFK.

    Meanwhile this is much more like the first wave of Vietnam films after Vietnam. The interpretation of the war in those films absolutely mattered. That was the point. As opposed to yeah we had this war, and it was divisive, and it was a significant part of our national experience, but, hey…popcorn!

    And some people still believe the lie that 9/11 was tied to Iraq in some way.

    That film can’t lionize the guy into the KIND of hero he is in the film without sustaining the lie. He believes he is protecting sheep from wolves. That makes no sense if there is no particularly good, defensible reason to invade Iraq.

    And let’s not confuse “being historically accurate” (cause no film IS, the medium doesn’t allow it) with deliberately upholding a lie that helped justify an overseas war. A film about WW2 doesn’t have to have every frame be perfectly historically accurate, but…it shouldn’t claim the war was about keeping communism out of mexico.

    January 25, 2015 at 1:41 am #17327
    zn
    Moderator
    waterfield wrote:

    “It’s like talking to the dog, even though you the the dog doesn’t understand. But you get pleasure from talking to it anyway.”

    Now you’ve gone too far with your dog analogy. My dog Pepper has what we call in special education “receptive language”. If I say “ball” he goes and finds a ball. If I say “toy” he goes and finds a toy cat. If I say “dinner” he sits by his bowl. If I say “poop” he….well not quite yet.

    Yeah dogs can understand particular words as prompts and can have huge vocabularies. Mine does, and he can even understand combined words that he knows individually but has never heard TOGETHER before. He gets what the COMNINATION means. He gets “Sheila” (means my daughter is around, look for her), he gets “outside” (means I will be letting him out), but he got it the first time I ever said “Sheila outside,” and knew that it meant he should go outside and find her.

    But that’s not what the analogy means. It was not about dog’s getting words they’re trained to get. It was about conversing. Sitting there talking in whole sentences. Dogs get your tone but then don’t understand spontaneous conversational sentences. But I do it anyway. “Hey there he is, what a scruffy happy dog, boy you sure do need a trip to the groomer.”

    b

    January 25, 2015 at 1:58 am #17328
    waterfield
    Participant

    “Or reasons independent of any attempt to repeat a lie about a war we opposed?”

    It was about a real person in real Iraq. It was not about the pretext for the war. Should it have been? Tell that to Eastwood. He most certainly did not want to make a movie justifying the war in Iraq. He opposed it. If the movie resonates well with right wingers-so be it. If the movie is to some justification for being in Iraq-so be it. Stupidity cannot be reformed by the arts nor should they try. Eastwood is not Michael Moore and doesn’t look for movies to sell a political viewpoint. He likes to tell a story and does a good job of it. He is not a hx teacher nor does he have any responsibility to be one. The movie was about a man’s emotional and physical trauma due to war. Simple. Eastwood also made a movie which was very sympathetic to Japanese soldiers in the war in the Pacific. (Letters from Iwo Jima) That movie was about people not about who was on the right side of the war. Again, that is what he does best. I say leave the salesmanship to movie makers like Moore.

    January 25, 2015 at 2:03 am #17329
    zn
    Moderator
    waterfield wrote:

    “Or reasons independent of any attempt to repeat a lie about a war we opposed?”

    It was about a real person in real Iraq. It was not about the pretext for the war. Should it have been? Tell that to Eastwood. He most certainly did not want to make a movie justifying the war in Iraq. He opposed it. If the movie resonates well with right wingers-so be it. If the movie is to some justification for being in Iraq-so be it. Stupidity cannot be reformed by the arts nor should they try. Eastwood is not Michael Moore and doesn’t look for movies to sell a political viewpoint. He likes to tell a story and does a good job of it. He is not a hx teacher nor does he have any responsibility to be one. The movie was about a man’s emotional and physical trauma due to war. Simple. Eastwood also made a movie which was very sympathetic to Japanese soldiers in the war in the Pacific. (Letters from Iwo Jima) That movie was about people not about who was on the right side of the war. Again, that is what he does best. I say leave the salesmanship to movie makers like Moore.

    And in the course of telling its story, the film upheld the lie that 9/11 was connected to the invasion of Iraq.

    Yeah I saw the film about Iwo Jima. The 2nd one, Letters from Iwo Jima. It didn’t uphold the lie that the Japanese were merely defending themselves against American imperialism and that they attacked Pearl Harbor as a response to a previous American attack.

    But let;s pretend it did. Not that a character or 2 or in fact the whole Japanese garrison believed that lie, but the film itself upheld and advanced that lie as the primary explanation for the war taking place. Pretend the film was based on that belief. How would that go over? Would most people just go “yeah well it’s a movie not history”?

    That’s a pretty big lie, as lies go, the one in Sniper.

    January 25, 2015 at 12:18 pm #17336
    waterfield
    Participant

    I understand anthropomorphism-really, I do.

    January 25, 2015 at 12:22 pm #17337
    waterfield
    Participant

    “That’s a pretty big lie, as lies go, the one in Sniper.”

    Eastwood neither created nor defended the lie. He avoided it in order to tell a story about one soldier in war. Maybe tomorrow he will start another movie addressing the lie since he opposed the war. Who knows.

    It’s really very simple. Agendas make it complicated.

    January 25, 2015 at 12:32 pm #17339
    waterfield
    Participant

    Here’s an interesting piece on Eastwood, Iraq and The Sniper.

    http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/race/clint-eastwood-i-was-going-754761

    January 25, 2015 at 1:34 pm #17346
    wv
    Participant

    I would jump in, but i agree with every word
    zn has said. Especially the parts about Art/Politics
    being kinda inseparable.

    And its ok to hold a film
    accountable for its political inaccuracies and lies,
    just as its ok to hold a film accountable for its
    aesthetics etc. Blah blah blah

    It would be impossible for Eastwood or Oliver Stone
    to make a movie about a sniper in Iraq
    without having this kind of thread
    pop up afterwards 🙂

    w
    v

  • Author
    Posts
Viewing 30 posts - 1 through 30 (of 62 total)
1 2 3
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Comments are closed.