So has anyone read the book, and can confirm or deny Kyle’s attitudes towards killing and Iraqis?
Either way, given the subject matter, I’m not surprised by the incidences on Twitter of the movie whipping up anti Muslim sentiment, and the resultant… behavior, although I’m sure there would be arguments that such incidents are outliers and insignificant.
The tough question then becomes, even if such incidents were common, what would that mean for whether it would be responsible to make the film to begin with?
I would say it is irresponsible. For just a general movie, no, but if you’re going to pretend that your movie is a depiction of fact - as both American Sniper and Zero Dark Thirty do - I think you have a moral obligation to not to insinuate that torture helped find Bin Laden or that the Iraq War was retribution for 9/11.
It’s spelled “propaganda”, you misspelled it three times.
I’d agree those are all propaganda films if the definition of propaganda was “anything that tries to convey any ideas or concepts whatsoever.” Which of course makes all forms of art propaganda. In that case yes, otherwise, given the normal definition of it, no, none of those films are.
Honestly, when I heard about the premise of the film, the propaganda film from Inglourious Basterds is the first thing to came to mind. What makes it an unfair comparison is that the IG sniper film was officially sanctioned and financed by the propaganda arm of the Nazi regime. Otherwise it seems like a fairly apt comparison.
I’m not going to see it, not because I’m offended by what it supposedly represents politically—I’m not—but because I’m just not interested in the material to begin with.
I did see the film today, as I usually make it a point to see all the Oscar nominees.
The movie takes a very uncritical look at Kyle and a very uncritical look at the Iraq War. The enemy combatants are grotesquely evil. (And get this: there is a torture scene which is supposed to help us understand how evil they are. That’s right. They are evil because they torture. I think Clint filmed that scene completely without irony.)
There is not even a nod to the idea that the Iraqis might view themselves as freedom fighters and the Americans as invaders. Nope. Our enemies are just evil.
None of Kyle’s more uncomfortable character traits are portrayed. In the movie, he is a straight-up hero. No nuance.
The movie does address seriously and thoughtfully the effects of war on the psyche and on military families. I can give it that. But it could have been so much more if Clint hadn’t just seen it as a hero’s tale.
I get frustrated when people like Michael Moore use outdated references to snipers. You’d think this guy would be a little more up to date. It’s true that their traditional role was to randomly shoot anyone in a enemy uniform. The people shot could easily be support troops or combat troops. I’d agree in that role a sniper isn’t anybody to look up to.
The modern day snipers operate under the same Rules of Engagement that all Coalition Forces must adhere to. They can only fire on clear threats to our troops. The insurgents don’t wear uniforms. Randomly shooting people in uniform isn’t even an option for our snipers. Our snipers use high power optics to observe the urban battlefield. They see the guys on cell phones coordinating attacks. They see the armed men assembling for an ambush. Or men planting IED’s along the road. These are obvious dangers that have to be taken out to protect our troops.
The irony is, a sniper is the most precise weapon we have. Air Support kills everybody inside a room. A sniper can take out just one combatant and leave his family members in that room unharmed.
That’s all true. You only missed one little detail:
These are obvious dangers that have to be taken out to protect our troops.
The troops were obvious dangers that had to be taken out to protect the Iraqi homeland.
I think a lot of Iraqis would find the second description more accurate.
