|
Haven't seen the movie, the trailer was really well done but Chris Kyle and the hero worship of navy seals and special forces sums up everything that is wrong with a large part of western society today. I bet when the movie finishes in a cinema,a load of americans are gonna stand up and clap and go out on the streets and find some guy in uniform or a vet and go "Thank you for your service" while real vets go "Can you fatsoes please leave me alone". Guessing from the trailer, i guess this movie presents Kyle as too morally conflicted and sympathetic compared to reality. Its like 'Generation War' "OH BUT MY FRIEND IS JEWISH, I FEEL SO BAD SHOOTING JEWS, YOU SEE WE ARE ALL MORALLY CONFLICTED NORMAL GERMANS NOT NAZIS" while in reality Kyle was not very sympathetic and believed every woman children person he killed as just and righteous thing to do and defending Americans back home. astupiddvdcase fucked around with this message at 03:30 on Jan 21, 2015 |
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 03:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 15:20 |
|
|
As a non-american, the reaction of the crowd leaving the theater after the movie was over was like a collective and synchronized eyeroll. Quite a few people laughed during it too. And this is in a country where american culture is idolized.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 03:28
|
|
|
Whoops. I'm excited about seeing it in theaters eventually as well as Crain's write up to prep me.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 03:31
|
|
|
^^Well lucky you^^ (WARNING MASSIVE EFFORT POST AND SPOILERS AHEAD) I’m going to be focusing primarily on Chris Kyle’s representation in the film and in his book and not the overall depiction of the military. There isn’t much to say about the military here since it’s the same kind of depiction that they have received in popular culture for the last 15 or so years. There is one thing I will say about the depiction of the military though, or rather Kyle’s specific SEAL platoon, as it pertains to what I think the film is trying to do with how it represents Kyle. The first thing I think everyone should do, if they haven’t already and even then go and do it again, is read the book and then watch the movie, in that order, one right after the other. There is a major case of revisionist history going on in this movie when it comes to who Chris Kyle was. There are 6 major scenes or topics that are covered in both the film and book that when examined in connection with each other show how much of an attempt was made to completely whitewash who Chris Kyle was. On top of that the changes made end up making him less likeable in some cases. I know it’s almost a trope that adaptations are usually lazy and don’t care to have their changes make contextual sense but there are a few scenes that directly contradict each other in what they attempt to portray Kyle as. So the 6 scenes/topics are: -The opening scene (book and movie) -The RPG scene (book and movie) -Mustafa and the Butcher (Almost entirely movie) -Marc Lee’s Funeral (book and movie) -Ryan Job’s death (book and movie) -PTSD (entirely movie) I’m going to simply detail the differences (if possible) between the book version and the movie version of each of these items first and then go into talking about my interpretation of why those changes were made. The Openings Scene: Book version: quote:“I watched our troops pull up. Ten young, proud Marines in uniform got out of their vehicles and gathered for a foot patrol. As the Americans organized, the woman took something from beneath her clothes, and yanked at it. She’d set a grenade. I didn’t realize it at first. Movie Version (Summarized by myself since I can’t just link to a video, But if you have your own copy via means then the time stamps are: 00:01:24-00:04:30 and 00:27:24-00:29:22): In the movie we see Kyle on overwatch as he spots a woman and a child approach a convoy of Marines. The woman hands the child a grenade and he runs at the Marines. His team mate makes mention of the ROEs (rules of engagement, in the book it's usually abbreviated with the 's' on the end so I'm leaving it) and how if he's wrong he'll be sent to prison. Kyle attempts to get a second set of eyes and confirmation on the situation and is told it's his call. The scene then shifts and tells the quick story of his live up to the point in the opening. This takes about 20 min. After that we see a replay of the exact scene, then find out that Kyle did in fact shoot the child. Then after the child is shot the woman goes for the grenade and is also shot. The grenade falls short, injuring no one. After this Kyle's teammate says both "That was gnarly" (about the child) and "Fuckin' evil Bitch." (about the woman). He then slaps Kyle's shoulder trying to congratulate him and Kyle tells him, clearly stressed, "Get the gently caress off me". The next scene Kyle shows he is somewhat shaken up about it, but knows he made the right call. The RPG Scene: Book Version: quote:“An hour later, another guy poked his head out from behind a wall on another part of the street. He glanced in the direction of the T-wall, then pulled back. It may have seemed innocent to someone else—and certainly didn’t meet the ROEs—but I knew to watch more carefully. I’d seen insurgents follow this same pattern now for years. They would peek out, glance around, then disappear. I called them “peekers”—they “peeked” out to see if anyone was watching. I’m sure they knew they couldn’t be shot for glancing around. I knew it, too. But I also knew that if I was patient, the guy or whoever he was spotting for would most likely reappear. Sure enough, the fellow reappeared a few moments later. He had an RPG in his hand. He knelt quickly, bringing it up to aim. I dropped him before he could fire. Then it became a waiting game. The rocket was valuable to them. Sooner or later, I knew, someone would be sent to get it. I watched. It seemed like forever. Finally, a figure came down the street and scooped up the grenade launcher. It was a kid. A child. I had a clear view in my scope, but I didn’t fire. I wasn’t going to kill a kid, innocent or not. I’d have to wait until the savage who put him up to it showed himself on the street.” (Please take heavy note of the last few lines). Movie Version (Timestamp if you have it: 01:35:10-01:37:20): “The scene start with Kyle in Sadr City (it's not stated in the film but based on his book that's where this is supposed to have taken place). He's doing overwatch on the construction project to build a large concrete wall that will make a secure border around the already established Green Zone. It's an attempt to push the insurgents out of rocket range of the Green Zone. We see a child sitting on the sidewalk as a car goes down a side street next to him. A man gets out and aims an RPG at the construction workers. Kyle shoots him deal quickly. Almost immediately the kid jumps up and goes over the now dead man as a few cries of confusions over the shot are heard from the people on the street. Kyle looks up a little confused as the kid runs to the dead man. The kid looks around with a dumb look on his face and tongue out before picking the RPG up. Kyle goes back to looking through his scope to observe what happens. He pleads from afar with the kid: "Don't pick it up. Don't you fuckin' pick it up. Sonovabitch. You fuckin' drop it. Drop it you little fucker." While saying this the kid proceeds to struggle lifting the RPG, points it around for a second, then drops it and quickly runs away. Kyle then sputters and coughs, looking like he might throw up.” Mustafa and the Butcher: Book version: quote:“While we were on the berm watching the city, we were also watching warily for an Iraqi sniper known as Mustafa. From the reports we heard, Mustafa was an Olympics marksman who was using his skills against Americans and Iraqi police and soldiers. Several videos had been made and posted, boasting of his ability. I never saw him, but other snipers later killed an Iraqi sniper we think was him.” Movie Version: There isn’t a single scene to summarize here. The story of “Mustafa” and the butcher makes up a large portion of the movie. The first mention of “Mustafa” comes at 00:27:10 and mostly follows the book in the sense that he’s some ghostly figure that sounds more like campfire tale than a real, or at least a single, person. The first mention of the Butcher is at 00:43:20 when the Iraqi family is being interrogated after having their house raided. We finally see both of them around 00:46:26 during the mission to get the previously mentioned Iraqi. After that these two are the main “villains” for the movie. Mustafa in particular becomes something like a rival for Kyle, taking on a role akin to Ed Harris’s role of Erwin Konig in “Enemy at the Gates”. These rival snipers keep fighting to take each other down (Mustafa in once scene is shown as having put up Kyle’s “wanted poster” in his house) until finally Kyle catches him unaware in the climax of the movie where he takes Mustafa down with a 2100 yard shot (This is stolen whole cloth from an entirely different story from the book). The Butcher storyline is also just sorta dropped after he gets away during another mission. Marc Lee’s Funeral: Book Version: quote:“After her son’s death, Marc Lee’s mom, Debbie, became almost a surrogate mother to the other members of our platoon. A very courageous woman, she has (The site still works if you want to read the letter yourself) Movie Version (Timestamp: 01:27:46-01:30:25): The scene starts with Kyle on an Honor Flight back to the states with what we have to assume is Marc Lee’s body. This leads into the funeral proper where Marc Lee’s mother is reading a final letter he sent home just before being killed in action. She does her best to keep reading but ends up breaking down after a few lines (For the curious the lines being read are the opening lines of the letter and are the actual lines written. Which for all that the movie has changed so far makes it an odd exception). After that there is a 21 gun salute (During which Kyle and other military members are explicitly shown to not flinch at the shots. Civilian actors perform some obviously fake flinching while Kyle remains statue still), the flag is given to Lee’s widow, the SEALs present punch their SEAL medals into the coffin, and everyone departs (Real tradition by the way). We then join Kyle and Taya in the car driving away. Kyle becomes preoccupied with observing a van driving behind them which alludes to earlier scenes where terrorists attacked via car “kamikaze”, this is also a nod toward Kyle’s potential PTSD. Taya asks Kyle what he thought of the letter. Kyle’s response is “A QI informant had called in a tip and, uh, Biggles (Ryan Job) had just been shot and we were operatin’ out of emotion and we just walked right into an ambush. But, that’s not what killed ‘im. That letter did, that letter killed Marc. He just, he let go and just…paid the price for it.” Ryan Job’s Death: Book: This is a topic that doesn’t have a single quote. But the basic rundown of Ryan Job’s post injury life (the injury is mostly consistent between the book and movie and not really important by itself) this this: After being injured and going through reconstructive surgery Ryan got married “he went to college, graduated with honors, and had an excellent job waiting for him. He climbed Mount Hood, Mount Rainer, and a bunch of other mountains; he went hunting and shot a prize trophy elk with the help of a spotter and a gun with some bad-rear end technology; he competed in a triathlon. I remember one night Ryan said that he was glad it was he who got shot instead of any of the other guys”. Then in 2010 Ryan Job died of complications during another surgery for chronic illness related to is injury in Iraq. To be clear: This is well after Kyle had left his last tour and was debating on whether or not to reenlist. Movie: (Timestamp: 01:34:38, it’s one line) In the movie Kyle finds out about Ryan’s death during what would have been his 3rd tour of 4 (based on when events happened in the book, it’s never clearly stated in the movie what tour he’s on and which “home scenes” are for tour breaks or for special circumstances like Marc Lee’s funeral). This moves the time of Ryan’s death forward almost 4 years or so from reality and the movie insinuates (via the “I just went to see him in the hospital before I left, fucker can’t see poo poo.”) that he hadn’t yet made it past therapy and reconstructive surgery. PTSD: Book version: No mention of “PTSD”, “Post Traumatic Stress Disorder”, or any description of the effects as they pertain to Chris Kyle or anyone he aided is present in the book. There are only two things that could be read into that could give you some sense of Kyle suffering from PTSD: He mentions in one section that he started drinking heavily right after formally leaving the Navy. This leads to a car crash where he was miraculously not injured. He then straightens up and gets better. No mention of what he does to do this. The second thing is that Kyle apparently had a habit of taking a week to himself when he came back from tours. He said this was to help him reintegrate to the civilian world. Not necessarily a sign of PTSD by itself though. Movie Version: This is similar to Mustafa and the Butcher in that it is all over the place. After almost every kill Kyle is shown to have some level or trauma or pause in his thoughts as he tries to gather himself. The civilian scenes are also all about his PTSD after about the 50 minute mark. The scenes that point toward his suffering from PTSD are: In the prenatal check up (00:55:06), after his son’s birth when he sees Taya had watched the enemy sniper tapes he has (00:57:06), when he meets his brother on his way back to Iraq (and his brother is just leaving) his brother is clearly supposed to be showing PTSD signs (00:58:25), At the car garage when a fellow soldier comes up to Kyle to thank him for saving his life and then after at the hospital when his newborn daughter is crying and the nurse is “ignoring” her (01:13:16), Driving home from Marc Lee’s funeral (01:29:34), When he returns to the states for the last time and sits in a bar without having told his family that he was even home (01:52:50), when he is sitting at home watching a blank TV hearing war sounds (01:55:03), and then when he attacks a dog playing with his son at a birthday party (01:56:07). After that and for the rest of the movie the only topic is Kyle’s PTSD and his attempts to get better while helping fellow veterans. The Name of Kyle’s Platoon: I mentioned this earlier, about the portrayal of the Military and Kyle’s Platoon’s name. The platoon calls themselves “The Punishers”. This is explicitly stated in the book to be a reference to Frank Castle, the Marvel Comics anti-hero. The platoon uses the name “The Punishers” and uses the signature skull logo on their equipment and vehicles. In the book Kyle mentions at various times that they use the name in the exact same manner: They are punishing the wicked, evil, savage Iraqi’s. The movie however makes no overt mention of this and only once is the name of the platoon even mentioned by Kyle (01:34:18 during the scene he learns about Ryan Job’s death). However it is still heavily present in the background. You can see the punisher logo on their vehicles (on the armor in front of the mounted machine guns) and at 00:29:40 you can see Kyle’s platoon mate reading a Punisher comic book when he returns from his first kill. It’s never specifically made clear that this is why the punisher logo is present in the film. My Interpretation So what is going on here? If you’ve read the book or were familiar with whom Chris Kyle was before the movie was announced/around the time of the book’s publication then you already know that this man was an unrepentant jingoist. He can be quoted as saying that “They all deserved to die” in regards to everyone he had killed during his tours of duty. He was proud of his service, he wished he could have killed more (his words) since he felt that each Iraqi killed saved an American life, and he, at least professed, that he had no qualms about his role in the Iraq War. Kyle almost goes out of his way in his book to explain how little it affected him to kill Iraqi’s. At best the only thing he worried about was making sure the ROEs (Rules of Engagement) were in order so he didn’t get called up by lawyers telling him to explain his kills. In his book he spends far more time talking about the myriad of physical injuries he suffered from (messed up knees, getting shot twice, chronic fatigue, etc.) throughout his service than any potential mental wounds he suffered from. But the movie spends a lot of time trying to make the case for an entirely different Chris Kyle. The movie puts forward a man who fought for his country and suffered deeply for it. The movie removes a lot of his jingoistic language, they add in scenes of extreme distress and trauma to his kills, and they spend half of the movie pushing forward an aspect of Chris Kyle’s life that is entirely absent from his own autobiography. Now the film does have one advantage over Kyle himself and that is because they are able to view his story from a post mortem window. Maybe Kyle did suffer from PTSD himself. It didn’t make much news. He certainly worked with veterans who suffered from it and maybe his chest puffing was all a means to try and convince himself that he wasn’t affected by his service in Iraq. But aside from that possibility the things that were removed and the things that were added and changed between Kyle’s book and Eastwood’s film clearly point towards a rewritten history. Looking at the opening scene and the RPG scene specifically the disconnect between what the book says and what the movie shows are entirely different and completely contradictory. The books version of the opening scene has just a woman attempt to attack the Marines while the movie adds in a child that is used to attack them before being killed. But in the Book version of the RPG scene we have an almost mirrored situation: A child is being used in a combat role and Kyle would have been “cleared” to kill him but he specifically says “I wasn’t going to kill a kid, innocent or not”. Now is the situation different? Yes. In the movies opening there is clear and present danger from the kid attacking the Marines. However that situation never happened. As far as we can know Kyle would not shoot a kid. We also know from his own recollection that he would not have a reaction like the movie shows to shooting one if he did. He viewed any combatants as evil savages that needed to be killed. With either interpretation we get a completely different person from the one the movie is feeding us. Additionally when it comes to Marc’s funeral we get the opposite problem. In the book Kyle has nothing but good things to say about Marc and his letter. Kyle calls the letter “incredible” and “an extremely positive [letter]”. Why would you change this to “that letter killed Marc”? If you’re trying to make Kyle more likeable or at least more sympathetic why change what is arguably one of the most positive parts of his book to an almost venomous attack on a fellow SEAL’s character? And add into that killing off Ryan Job in a completely invented manner and removing a majorly positive story for post war veterans. If you’re really trying to make a movie that focuses on PTSD and the role that war plays in damaging soldiers (Which I think is what this movie wants you to think it’s doing) why delete a real life story that would have made a hugely positive addition to the end of the film? Add in a story about how this man survived and thrived after the war. But no, it’s rewritten to give Movie Kyle the motivation to “FINISH THE FIGHT!”. And then there is the Mustafa/The Butcher story arc. This is invented whole cloth. Kyle barely mentions the concept of an Olympic Sniper going by the name “Mustafa” in his book. At best the historical record is that this “person” was just a name to give credit to for any US casualty for propaganda purposes. But I think the point of these characters was as a focal point for Kyle’s jingoistic hatred of Iraqis. The film makers found a way to take all of Kyle’s bragging about killing Iraqis and severe hatred of Iraqis and make it “Ok”. Instead of letting Kyle spout this crap about a random, amorphous group of (brown) people they refocused those feelings onto two OBJECTIVELY evil men. The filmmakers go overboard on making these guys evil. They have their character of The Butcher kill a kid with a drill; they have the sniper Mustafa kill for money (hinted at when we see him with Kyle’s bounty poster). These guys are so comically evil they should have had long, thin moustaches that they are constantly twirling. This is purely to make give a smokescreen to Kyle’s nigh racist hatred of Iraqis. So here is what I think is really happening. I think that this movie is trying to whitewash Chris Kyle in the same way little kids try to get out of trouble. This is a movie that is taking a man who literally thought of himself as a Marvel Superhero (Super Anti-Hero?) bringing justice to an evil land. In his book Kyle spends more time talking about how he saw himself as justified, and almost with a God given right, to kill Iraqis during his tours of duty. So what does this movie do? Well Kyle got hurt too… Sound familiar? As a kid, were you ever in a situation where you got hurt by some other kid (or did hurt some other kid) either by accident or on purpose and the person who did the hurting quickly go: “Oh my foot/hand/head/etc. is really hurt (after hitting that other kid) waaah, we’re both in pain”? That’s what I think is happening with this movie. It’s trying to excuse who Kyle was by painting him as a broken man. I also think it’s trying to rewrap the Iraq war in a way that the current American public will accept it. In a sense it’s trying to say that “both sides were hurt” and even with the “good” that was done all these poor soldiers are damaged and let’s just focus on helping them and forget about how bad of an idea this farce of a conflict was. If Chris “The Punisher” Kyle, self-professed (and historically verified) super soldier can be broken by this war then what we really need to do is just ignore the circumstances of the war and just focus on helping veterans. Crain fucked around with this message at 03:39 on Jan 21, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 03:33
|
|
|
Abu Dave posted:I don't see a thread but holy poo poo this movie made me sick to my stomache in over patriotism and reckless abandon. If he was such a great sniper with the motto of "Aim small miss small" why didn't he shoot to disarm instead of always shooting to kill? When you blow your credibility out of the water in the third sentence of your rant it's a sign that you really should put more effort into these things. I give this troll a 2/10 Crain posted:If you've read the book, Eastwood/the producers actually toned down the Jingoism. The move presents a side of Kyle that is totally absent from his own Autobiography and focuses on it entirely (the PTSD). Funny thing: No mention of PTSD exists in his book. It's not mentioned by name, alluded to, nor is it's (potential) effect on Kyle mentioned. On the opposite side Kyle spends an absurd amount of time talking about the many physical injuries he suffered in Iraq. I read that they rewrote 70% of the movie after interviewing his wife after his death, and that the focus on his PTSD came from what she said. Charlz Guybon fucked around with this message at 03:47 on Jan 21, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 03:38
|
|
|
Charlz Guybon posted:
I took that into consideration. The movie has an advantage over Chris Kyle himself because they can view his life from a post mortem point of view. But even if she is the source for the PTSD angle, the other changes to Kyles behavior between the book and the movie point to some major whitewashing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 03:56
|
|
|
Hoooly poo poo I cannot believe the haterade being spilled all over the laps of the people in this thread. How about you all put down the knife and stop making those peanut butter & jealous sandwiches; Chris Kyle is an American hero, and war does not make for fluffy & nice stories.
----------------
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 03:57
|
|
|
Narciss posted:Hoooly poo poo I cannot believe the haterade being spilled all over the laps of the people in this thread. How about you all put down the knife and stop making those peanut butter & jealous sandwiches; Chris Kyle is an American hero, and war does not make for fluffy & nice stories. 0/10 Please see me after class.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 03:59
|
|
|
Narciss posted:Hoooly poo poo I cannot believe the haterade being spilled all over the laps of the people in this thread. How about you all put down the knife and stop making those peanut butter & jealous sandwiches; Chris Kyle is an American hero, and war does not make for fluffy & nice stories. prime quote from a real american hero, who has courageously paid over $140 to keep the forums afloat with retard posts. gently caress chris kyle this is where it at
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 06:01
|
|
|
Just got back from this. Very powerful. Probably the most anti-war movie made in quite a while. Now that I think about it, I don't think ive ever seen an anti-war movie for a war passed Vietnam. This was a nice breath of fresh air.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 06:19
|
|
|
GuyDudeBroMan posted:Just got back from this. Very powerful. Probably the most anti-war movie made in quite a while. Now that I think about it, I don't think ive ever seen an anti-war movie for a war passed Vietnam. This was a nice breath of fresh air. If you don't mind me asking, what characteristics of it make it anti war for you?
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 07:48
|
|
|
The worst thing about the movie was the fake baby http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fLwAcU0bYl0
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 15:31
|
|
|
I want to screen this back to back with Unforgiven and see whether people's heads explode from the moral whiplash. Also don't forget the real Kyle boasted about sniping 30 Fangz fucked around with this message at 15:55 on Jan 21, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 15:52
|
|
|
Plot aside, how does the movie actually look?
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 16:16
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Plot aside, how does the movie actually look? No real standout shots for me, but still a very good looking film. The predator aerial shots seemed a bit video-gamey, the rodeo scene felt like cgi, and the fake baby was laughable. Otherwise, everything seemed real.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 16:30
|
|
|
GuyDudeBroMan posted:Just got back from this. Very powerful. Probably the most anti-war movie made in quite a while. Now that I think about it, I don't think ive ever seen an anti-war movie for a war passed Vietnam. This was a nice breath of fresh air. Haha, what? Are you joking? drat near every war movie post-Vietnam is antiwar.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 16:34
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:Haha, what? Are you joking? drat near every war movie post-Vietnam is antiwar. I don't mean movies made passed the 1970's. I mean movies made about wars that took place after Vietnam. You don't see too many Desert Storm movies/Iraq/Afghanistan movies with similar messages to Born on the 4th of July or Platoon.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 17:09
|
|
|
I don't even have to look these up: Hurt Locker, Stop-Loss, Jarhead, No End In Sight, Generation Kill, Restrepo, September Tapes, Redacted, Lions For Lambs, The Green Zone, Armadillo, Lessons Of Darkness, Live From Baghdad - like half the movies I can think of about Afghanistan and Iraq are specifically about extrajudicial kidnapping and torture. Come on, man.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 17:18
|
|
|
Eh, Hurt Locker and Jarhead aren't even in the same ballpark as Born on the 4th of July/Platoon.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 17:27
|
|
|
Sure. Both are better, for one thing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 17:29
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:Haha, what? Are you joking? drat near every war movie post-Vietnam is antiwar. That's totally untrue. There's a brief window after Vietnam when movies and depiction of war was often explicitly antiwar - late 70s and early 80s, but by the mid 80s to today most war movies are in one way or another pro-war. Top Gun is the most pivotal movie to make that happen - for it, military equipment was made available basically for free under the agreement that the US Armed forces be depicted positively. Similar deals remain very common in big-budget war movies. There may be critical notes in movies, where there is a sense of loss, or trauma, or futility - but the courage and essential decency of the troops and the reasons for being there in the first place are almost never questioned. American soldiers, in the movies, are heroes, and America is a great country trying to do good. American Sniper absolutely fits into that mold, even if it has some interesting points to make about trauma and relationships. I wouldn't call it anything like an antiwar movie. I think an antiwar movie at the very least needs to question those in charge - for example, in terms of morality or competence. The list Hundu mentions I think doesn't show that many exceptions. Yes, there are documentaries (which is a whole different category) that address torture and brutality, but what most of the others do is place some emphasis on the suffering American troops endure. That CAN be part of an antiwar message, but doesn't have to: it can also feed back into a narrative of righteous sacrifice deserving of admiration, and the myth of the superhuman American Warrior. The Hurt Locker did this, for example, and so did Platoon. Most of contemporary war movies fit much more into the Zero Dark Thirty or Lone Survivor mold, where brave men Do What They Have To for The Greater Good.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 17:47
|
|
|
I would say "many", not "most", but the implication that this is one of the only antiwar movies since Vietnam is just absurd.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 17:58
|
|
|
Like I said in the Greenlit thread, I, for one, enjoy the breath of honesty of this movie, and the reaction to it. I mean, this movie is what a lot of the US feels/thinks, isn't it? So, it's good to see it out there in the open. Like a horrible id or Birth of a Nation (nb., made 100 years ago. What is it about the US and the '15s?). I mean, nobody saw it fit to shoot, let's say, the story of Austin Gates Benson.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 18:00
|
|
|
The best "The military paid for a lot of this" movie is Stripes
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 18:10
|
|
|
What we need is basically the same movie, but call it American Drone Operator.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 18:15
|
|
|
GuyDudeBroMan posted:Just got back from this. Very powerful. Probably the most anti-war movie made in quite a while. Now that I think about it, I don't think ive ever seen an anti-war movie for a war passed Vietnam. This was a nice breath of fresh air. Please watch No Man's Land (2001)
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 18:27
|
|
|
I can't help but find it odd that people are bashing this movie for being propaganda when nearly every other film with any contemporary political theme can safely be called that. For god's sake, Selma came out less than a month ago and that was easily as heavy handed as this was.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 19:08
|
|
|
Lumpy the Cook posted:I can't help but find it odd that people are bashing this movie for being propaganda when nearly every other film with any contemporary political theme can safely be called that. For god's sake, Selma came out less than a month ago and that was easily as heavy handed as this was. You're probably trolling but there's a difference between being heavy handed about civil rights and being supportive of an unwarranted invasion of a country resulting in hundreds of thousands dead.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 19:15
|
|
|
Reading the little book snippets makes Kyle seem alot more relatable and less of a monster. Like in the movie he had no qualms about killing children, if he had to.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 23:29
|
|
|
That's the opposite of how it really reads. He gloats about how little he feels for the Iraqis and directly says he doesn't give a poo poo about helping them and feels great about shooting them. The book has hardly any of the somber, reflective poo poo the movie pushes. It's a right wing fantasy piece.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 23:48
|
|
|
Well, in the book piece it says he wouldn't shoot a child ever, and in the movie he shoots one and almost 2 so it's a wash I get.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 23:52
|
|
|
That seems like some sort of horrible moral conundrum. Is it worse to shoot a kid and feel bad, or not shoot a kid but feel no remorse shooting adults?
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 00:03
|
|
|
Crain, you mention that you interpret that Eastwood/filmmakers toned down the jingoism and excised the more questionable stories from the book. This is reminding me a lot of the story with Lone Survivor, where Peter Berg tried to rein in the source material's exaggeration of Operation Red Wings done by the SEAL author.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 00:38
|
|
|
ma i married a tuna posted:That's totally untrue. There's a brief window after Vietnam when movies and depiction of war was often explicitly antiwar - late 70s and early 80s, but by the mid 80s to today most war movies are in one way or another pro-war. Top Gun is the most pivotal movie to make that happen - for it, military equipment was made available basically for free under the agreement that the US Armed forces be depicted positively. Similar deals remain very common in big-budget war movies. Top Gun wasn't a war movie though, so it doesn't count. It was a gay romance/drama film because of the volleyball beach sequence, and soundtrack.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 00:54
|
|
|
So, my issues with the plot and content of the movie aside, I really thought it was a weak effort from Clint Eastwood. It's boring from a camerawork standpoint, and just doesn't feel like it was made by the same person that made Iwo Jima, Million Dollar Baby, or (especially) Unforgiven
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 01:07
|
|
|
Young Freud posted:Crain, you mention that you interpret that Eastwood/filmmakers toned down the jingoism and excised the more questionable stories from the book. This is reminding me a lot of the story with Lone Survivor, where Peter Berg tried to rein in the source material's exaggeration of Operation Red Wings done by the SEAL author. America Sniper and Lone Survivor (the books) were co-written by Tom Clancy wannabes. Which is why I have trouble taking passages like these... ... at face value. They showcase Kyle and Luttell as the Hardass Action Heroes they want to be seen as. And while I can imagine a real life person believing similar things, the way that these men's beliefs, and their actions, are communicated to the reader is in the language of pulpy shoot-em-up airport novels. High Warlord Zog fucked around with this message at 02:50 on Jan 22, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 01:47
|
|
|
Abu Dave posted:Like in the movie he had no qualms about killing children, if he had to. They literally had an entire scene where he was having moral conflicts about having to do his job because it was a kid. His buddy had to console him after the kid kill because it was his first kill ever and he was in shock about it. He snapped at his spotter because he was upset too. The near shot on the 2nd kid he was freaking the gently caress out the entire time. I'm not defending the movie, as I agree it was some quality produce propaganda, but this is just factually wrong. The movie did not portray that. Crunkjuice fucked around with this message at 02:18 on Jan 22, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 02:15
|
|
|
It's crazy because you see language like Kyle's used as early as the Philippine MeatwadIsGod fucked around with this message at 02:18 on Jan 22, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 02:15
|
|
|
Abu Dave posted:Well, in the book piece it says he wouldn't shoot a child ever, and in the movie he shoots one and almost 2 so it's a wash I get. In the book he's saying that in a "warriors code" sense. Also the movie invented the situation where he shoots a kid. Go and read my synopsis of what changes the movie makes. Also I couldn't include all the times he goes "I had no issue killing that [savage/evil man/haji/some other racist name for Iraqi]". The movie has him showing way more emotion and pause about his kills. In book he basically says he was roleplaying The Punisher. Young Freud posted:Crain, you mention that you interpret that Eastwood/filmmakers toned down the jingoism and excised the more questionable stories from the book. This is reminding me a lot of the story with Lone Survivor, where Peter Berg tried to rein in the source material's exaggeration of Operation Red Wings done by the SEAL author. Yeah, that's not off base. Like High Warlord Zog says there were others guiding these books besides their respective subjects. Here is the "About the Authors" page. quote:SEAL TEAM 3 CHIEF CHRIS KYLE served four combat tours in Operation Iraqi Freedom and elsewhere. For his bravery in battle, he was awarded two Silver Stars, On another topic: If people are going to try and say that Taya Kyle (Chris Kyle's Wife) "set the record" straight for the film makers in light of his death and/or hitherto unknown (or at least unpublicized) PTSD then keep in mind that she has her own sections in his book. She never mentions any of this. In fact many of the stories she does share continue to paint Kyle as the rabidly jingoistic, right wing, militaristic, caricature we think he is. Not trying to call anyone out, Charlz Guybon's post just made me think to double check those sections. For example: quote:The first time Chris came home, he was really disgusted with everything. With America, especially. However the following lines do show some behavior that could point to PTSD: quote:But the adjustment to being home was hard. He’d wake up punching. He’d always been jumpy, but now, when I got up in the middle of the night, However, and I'm ashamed to say I missed this actually, the next Taya section recounts the car service scene but with no mention of Chris suffering from PTSD or getting focused on the impact wrench: quote:Not always in a bad way: one day, Chris was getting his oil changed at a local shop. Some men were in the lobby with him. The guy behind the I'm going to reiterate something from previously: Why bother rewriting another scene to purely fictional when there is a perfectly good, and true, situation where the POV you're trying to push is present? They could have kept the bedroom scene of Kyle being freaked out by his wife coming back to bed, but instead chose to fabricate an aspect of a different story to push the PTSD angle. You can try to blame it on Kyle not approving Taya of talking about anything PTSD related, but then why let her put the story about him jolting awake when she came back to bed in? Also that section, Kyle being jumpy after his first deployment, is the last time we hear about that kind of behavior or any PTSD related behavior from Taya either. Rant pt.2 over. Crain fucked around with this message at 02:55 on Jan 22, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 02:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 15:20 |
|
|
Saw this earlier today. I cannot believe this is nominated for Best Picture at the Oscars. It's not so much that I find the movies politics questionable, to say the least, but IT IS SO loving BORING. At no point is it established why I should give a poo poo about this guy. Literally the only noteworthy thing about him in his whole life is that he is a good shot with a rifle. The final battle sequence with the sand everywhere is a giant mess, with absolutely no tension because I don't care who lives or dies. In fact, all of the action sequences are dull in the extreme. Was I supposed to care when his friend is killed because every character in the movie is so poorly developed I didn't. The screenplay is garbage, the cinematography is passable at best, it's edited by-the-numbers... I guess Bradley Cooper managed to put on 30 pounds and do a Texas accent so hooray for him, Oscar nomination! Kathryn Bigelow has made two movies with politics I find highly questionable in The Hurt Locker and Zero Dark Thirty, but at least they are exciting, well constructed films that I enjoyed on a purely cinematic level. American Sniper is just so, so, so dull. I thought the trailer with the mother and boy was a terrific trailer and expected to see a good film that I disagreed with on a philosophical level. Instead even that scene in the film is not as good as the trailer because Eastwood overplays the tension with a horrible score underneath! We get it's a super tense situation already, you don't need to have screeching dissonance swells to tell us that! edit: For the record, I'm not American. Maybe if you are then you can find some special connection with him being all hoorah save America or whatever. I'm not actively against films that portray characters like that (see Zulu for a British equivalent about a bunch of assholes killing savages for Queen and Country that is still a good movie), but you can't have a protagonist where his only character trait is "I'M AMERICAN". tanglewood1420 fucked around with this message at 03:10 on Jan 22, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 03:03
|
|
