I’m not really a fan of war or military movies in general. I also haven’t heard anything about this movie in particular that makes me want to see it.
Yeah, who knows if he really felt that way (which makes me think he isn’t a very complex person), or whether he felt regret and didn’t want to admit and seemed soft, or whether he had PTSD…
It’s just that war (obviously) involves a lot of awful things, and it’s troubling when you see someone who is involved that seems to lack any self-awareness for their part, or recognition in the inhumanity of it. Heck, I’d even take something drier that talks about it in a more detached way, than someone bragging about it. Doubt that there is a passage in “To Hell and Back” where Audie Murphy talks about how fun killing is.
Yes, because the decision of whether or not to see a movie is certainly earth-shattering and momentous enough to use only the most serious and weighty of standards to make it…
Good God, there’s so much fucking hand-wringing in this thread.
I’m not sure I agree. The trial was against Kyle’s estate – Kyle himself was dead and could not defend himself at trial. The jury initially deadlocked, and the judge strongarmed the parties into agreeing to accept a non-unanimous verdict. The jury voted 8-2 in favor of Ventura’s defamation claim.
That’s certainly good evidence that he lied about the Ventura encounter, but I don’t agree that “we know” he lied.
Exactly. And Letters From Iwo Jima is a better example of Eastwood not doing what he’s accused of here, since it features Japanese soldiers as the heroes and shows American soldiers doing evil things. Anyway, I have read a few reviews in the liberal media (Rolling Stone and Huffington Post specifically) that accuse Eastwood of being what OP calls him. Maybe it’s because he was the RNC, maybe it’s because they think all Eastwood movies are just rehashes of his Dirty Harry days.
Either way they reveal themselves as people who probably haven’t seen his entire body of work. Eastwood has a ton of directing credits to his name, he’s not a guy like Tarantino who carefully picks projects and they almost always are good on at least some level. There’s a lot of duds in Eastwood’s filmography, but he’s also done a lot of insightful movies that aren’t anything like Dirty Harry or Rambo.
Kyle had a videotaped deposition taken before he died that was part of the evidence at trial. And while he couldn’t take the stand we do have Kyle’s written account versus all the witnesses on both sides, I think Kyle’s accounting had a robust chance to defend itself.
More war-specific debating needs to move to Great Debates or the Pit, whichever you choose. Let’s keep this a discussion of the movie — which, necessarily will refer to the Iraq war, I understand — but keep it in terms of the film.
Thanks.
I’ve seen the movie, I remember what was going on at the time, and as this article points out, it is almost nothing but propaganda.
My concern with this movie is not the movie itself, the director or lead, their intentions or resulting artistic merit of the film.
My concern is that the movie is being treated as a release for the hatred of people of middle eastern descent by the small town bigots across the country. The movie may well be a quality story about the plight of the common soldier, but across the country the film is being used as a catharsis by people who have been feeding on the hate put out by politicians and news media. For this audience the film is little more than a chance to see a good old boy blow away brown people for an hour and a half.
Again, it doesn’t matter whether this was the intent of the creators or an objective part of the movie. There are reports of cheers and cat-calls every time a kill happens in the movie. That disturbs me and leads me to not want to support the movie regardless of its artistic merit.
Well sure, if vox.com says it’s true it must be.
Or this article from New Republic that states halfway through “I have not seen American Sniper. But if the trailer is any indication, Eastwood’s film, like Zero Dark Thirty, tries to make a straightforward situation more complex than it is.”
Great rebuttal you’ve got there. Care to point out what movie points the article got wrong?
edited to add: “A” doesn’t know what he is talking about because “B” admits he didn’t see the movie? Really?
No, as that article ASSERTS, you mean. That’s their opinion, doesn’t make it fact.
I hear you.
I don’t think this is just a “small town” effect, either.
And bragging about shooting looters after Katrina. “Looters” is code, of course, and not in the movie.
The article compares what is in the movie to what happened in real life, showing what was left out(the real reason why we were there, Saddam Hussein), what was inserted to make him seem even more heroic(over the top villains), the lack of any ambiguity when it came to his kills(not sure if the kid was really holding a grenade? Make sure it blows up and take any doubt away!). At no time is the audience ever in doubt that the kill is a “Bad Guy”-Our Hero doesn’t make mistakes, and the director makes sure that we know it.
Again, it you can find fault with the factual points made in the article, feel free to point them out.
None of that makes it propaganda. That makes it a movie based on an autobiographical book by a guy who was fairly certain he didn’t do anything wrong.
Why the hell would “looters” be a code word? There were honest to God looters in New Orleans (and elsewhere) after Katrina. Hell, I’ve seen footage of police officers in uniform stealing from stores after Katrina. Just because someone feels they need something bad enough isn’t an excuse to steal it from the rightful owners. Do it after a disaster and you’re a looter, no matter what the color of your skin is.
Can someone spoiler something for me, this scene in the trailer kind of freaked me out…
In the trailer I’ve seen he had a boy in his sights he believes has an IED of some kind and is approaching some troops and he appears to be struggling with taking the shot.
So, does he shoot the kid and was the kid carrying a weapon?
The scene where the audience is assured that the kid-kill was o.k. by letting the grenade blow up wasn’t in the book and, more importantly, neither of the major cartoon villains( “Mustafa” and “The Butcher”) were there, either. The book may tell a story, but the scriptwriter and the director decide the final tone of the movie. This was no autobiography.
So it’s ok to kill people as long as you don’t brag about it. Gotcha.