No he didn’t. The only conceivable “advance” of justification for the war is that he doesn’t address the issue. Your issues are with the “silence” of what you perceive are the real issues that YOU need to be discussed. Again, another day another film. Let’s strip off our clothes, become naked and honestly tell the truth: the article that began this post is agenda driven. Pure, simple, and honesty. I do not dislike honesty. But the truth in this matter is that Eastwood was not in any way attempting to “justify” the “lie”. To think otherwise is to be agenda driven. So be it.

Now could the movie have taken the “opportunity” to expose the “truth” . Yes if that was what the movie was intended to be about. Unfortunately for a few that was not the purpose of the movie.

I think I’m done here. I have other things I need to do. But PA’s personal experience in Desert Storm is very likely at the heart of Eastwood’s film and the “message” he wanted to deliver. Nothing more nothing less. At least in my opinion.

“Btw, i have NO idea how you can see an Eastwood
movie and not see his politics. Its right there
in the material he chooses.”

Have you seen Sniper?

Well I do see a difference in the two. To me Eastwood doesn’t make movies with a political agenda and Stone most certainly does. As an example I don’t see any political message in Sniper unless the absence of such can be seen as political. To me (ad nauseum) it was about the emotional trauma of one soldier-hence the singular “sniper” as opposed to sending some sort of political message. The movie was about loneliness, pain, suffering and loss. It was NOT about the morality of that war. Possibly a 10 year old might see the movie and believe we were in a justifiable war. But for most thinking people that curtain came down long ago. As PA wrote whether you believe we should have invaded Iraq or not a movie about the emotional trauma to a soldier ain’t gonna change your view. Moreover, everyone knows there were never any WMD found. As in a Leonard Cohen song: “everyone knows that the dice are loaded…”

“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.

“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.

“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.

“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.

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.

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.

My response: Integrity of the game? What integrity? It’s played by a bunch of malcontent, maladjusted, violent thugs for the most part who are druggies, rapists, murderers, spousal abusers, on and on.

And we love the game because the uniforms hide it all.

I think the message of the Ted Talk piece is very simple. ” I ain’t no dummy but I stayed”

I absolutely love Ted Talk. There’s really good stuff that they put on. And this video should be seen by all especially those that ask why doesn’t she leave. And to WV’s point below the business about Harvard, etc I think is to point out how even an intelligent woman who is financially independent doesn’t stay for money but for weird psychological reasons and can still “love” the abuser even when she eventually leaves him. At least that was the message I received.

IMO everyone should have Ted Talk access on their smart phone, I Pad, Apple TV-whatever. You really hear some marvelous stuff that causes one to think outside the box.